I- 


m 

"'-'Z 


m 


■ 


1 


jj 


~^j\ 


^' ■':> • J 




■ 


i' 




■> i-- .? 


m 


■ 


i 


/ 






1 




' V 


•^ f ■ 


: _ . / 


1 


',■ 




V' 5 ■ . 


j,. , > > 


' .■ 


": 






;/;: 


' i 


V 


' 


.'• .V,.' 


.5/'.', i 


1 


■;' 


■' 


,■ •' i '' i' 


M 





/• •• -■ ' ; 









1 ~ 



V: 



yc 




ILIBRARY OF CONGRESS.! 




ki 



<.A..»......S. 



^ 



# 

UN-ITBD STATES OP AMERICA.! 



A TREATISE 



ON 



JUSTinCATION. 



BY THE 
Rev. GEORGE JUNKIN, D. D. 



SECOND EDITION. 



REVISED AND ENLARGED, 




|Jl)Uairel|3l)ia 



PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM S. MARTIEN 

No. 142 Chestnut Street. 



/ tr^? 




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1849, by William 
S. Martien, in the Clerk's office of the District Court for the Eas- 
tern District of Pennsylvania. 



The Library 
OF Congress 

WASHINGTON 



TABLE OP CONTENTS. 



Advertisement, . . ... . . 7 

Preface, . . . . . . . .9 

CHAPTER I. 

On the Moral Government of God in general. — Section I. The 
Creator absolutely supreme, 13. — Sect. II. The Creature, absolutely 
dependent, 15. — Sect. III. The will of God, the foundation of moral 
obligation, 16. — Sect. IV. The revealed will of God, the rule of 
duty, 19. — Sect. V. Rational intelligence, necessary to moral 
agency, 21. — Sect. VI. Volition, or choice, necessary to moral 
agency, 23. — Sect. VII. A moral sense necessary to amoral agent, 
26. — Sect. VIII. Self-love, or the desire of happiness implied in 
moral government, 29. — Sect. IX. Rewards and punishments, ad- 
dressed to the principle of self-love, and essential to the idea of 
moral government, 30. — Sect. X. A brief summary, 35. 

CHAPTER II. 

On the particular modifications of Moral Government, as it was 
extended over Man in his primitive condition ; or the Cove- 
nant OF Works. — Section I. The primeval state of man, anterior 
to the formation of the covenant, considered intellectually, morally 
and legally, 37. — Sect. II. Of a covenant in general, 43. — Sect. III. 
Of God's covenant with Adam, 46. 

CHAPTER III. 

On the extent of the Covenant ; or the Representative Cha- 
racter OF Adam. — Section I. The general doctrine of representa- 
tion, 51. — Sect. II. This doctrine of Representation, taught in the 
laws of nature, and essential to man's social existence, 53. — Sect. 
III. Adam acted in the covenant as the representative of all human 
persons — he was the moral head of the race, 55. — Sect. IV. The 
mode of constituting the representative relation, 62. — Sect. V. The 
moral relation of Adam to his posterity, as head of the covenant, 
is principal ; and his natural relation is subservient thereto j and not 
vice versa, 65. 

CHAPTER IV. 

The definition of leading terms — Just, Righteous, Righteous- 
ness, Justify, Justification, 73. 

CHAPTER V. 

The requisites to Adam's Justification by the Covenant of 
Works. — Section I. Innocence, 84. — Sect. II. On the positive re- 
quirements of the Covenant, 84. — Sect. III. the limit to probation, 
85. — Sect. IV. Righteousness the grand requisite, 86. 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER VL 

On the Breach of the Covenant and the consequent additional 
REQUISITE TO Adam's JUSTIFICATION. — Section I. God's condescen- 
sion calculated to secure man's affection, 87. — Sec. II. The mys- 
terious fact — man's fall, occasioned through false views in the 
mind, 88. — Sect. III. The fall, a consequence of loss of confidence 
in God, 90. — Sect. IV. The effects of sin upon the legal relations 
and liabilities of Adam, 90, 

CHAPTER VII. 

On THE Consequences of Adam's Sin, to himself and to his pos- 
terity, Physically, Intellectually and Morally. — Section I. 
The physical constitution of the whole race is deranged, injured, 
and enfeebled by sin, 95. — Sect. II. Adam and all his children 
sufferers in their intellectual powers by the fall, 97. — Sect. III. The 
moral affections of Adam and his posterity became depraved by his 
sin, 102. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

On Original Sin. — Section I. Th« definition of the term, 106.— Sect. 
II. The definition of the thing, 108.— Sect. III. Of Imputation, 109. 
—Sect. IV. Of Condemnation, 114.— Sect. V. Of Guilt, 115.— Sect. 
VI. The sin of Adam is rightfully imputed to his posterity. (1) The 
acts of one are imputed to another. (2.) Objection — not until 
that other acts himself. (3.) The a posteriori argument. (4.) Ob- 
jections — infants sin before birth. (5.) Infant sufferings are dis- 
ciplinary, 118. 

CHAPTER IX. 

Original Sin — Argument — An Exposition of verses 12 — 21 of 
Fifth Chapter of Romans, 129. 

CHAPTER X. 

Original Sin — proved from the Salvation of those that die in 
Infancy. — Section I. Infants are saved, 142. — Sect. II. These In- 
fants attain to eternal happiness through Jesus Christ our Lord ; are 
saved, and indebted to Jesus for their salvation, 146. — Sect. III. 
Only Sinners can be saved, 148. — Sect. IV. Infants, guilty, con- 
demned, polluted and sinful beings, 150. 

CHAPTER XL 

The utter Inability of Man in his fallen state, to meet the 
requirements of Law, and thereby to restore himself to the 
FAVOUR OF God. — Section I. The general idea of ability and in- 
ability, 155. — Sect. II. The common distinction of natural and moral 
inability stated, 159. — Sect. III. Objections to the doctrines of na- 
tural ability and moral inability, 161. — Sect. IV. Man's inability as 
taught in the Bible, 166. 

CHAPTER XIL 

The Gospel reveals the only effectual remedy for the Evils 
OF the Broken Covenant. — Section I. The Gospel, a^remedial 



CONTENTS. 5 

law, 182. — Sect. II. The Gospel, like every remedial law, esta- 
blishes the principle of the original institute, 183. — Sect. III. The 
Gospel must provide a complete fulfilment of the positive precept of 
the law, or covenant of works, 186. — Sect. IV. The Gospel must 
remedy the failure — must make amends for the positive evils under 
the original institute, 187. — Sect. V. The two preceding grand re- 
quisites in the remedial law, must be secured on the principal of 
the original institute j viz. by a covenant representation, 188. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

The Covenant of Grace. — Section I. The parties are two; God the 
Father, and Jesus Christ the Son, 190. — Sect. II. — This covenant 
is gracious, because eternal, 193. — Sect. III. The terms, 193. — 
Sect. IV. The agreement, 195. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

The Fulfilment of the Covenant. — Section I. Jesus did obey the 
precepts of the law of God and thus fulfilled all righteousness, 197. 
— Sect. II. The obedience of Christ is vicarious ; or in other words, 
he, in all this, acted for his people — representatively, 199. — Sect. III. 
The necessity of an Atonement, 201. — Sect. IV. Jesus did satisfy 
the penal claims of law for his people — or the doctrine of Atone- 
ment, 202. — Sect. V. The doctrine of legal substitution, 211. — 
Sect. VI. Substitution embodied in the doctrine of Atonement, 215. 
— Sect. VII. The doctrine of substitution proved and illustrated by 
the typical sacrifices, 218. — Sect. VIII. This doctrine alone, can ac- 
count for the fact, that Jesus suff'ered, bled and died, 219. — Sect. 
IX. The consequences of legal substitution. 1. To the substitute. 
2. To the principal. 3. To God the Father, as the executor of 
law, 222. 

CHAPTER XV. 

The Extent of the Atonement. — Section I. A recapitulation of 
principles ; with the inference, that the atonement is as long and as 
broad as the salvation of God, 226. — Sect. II. The same proved by 
scriptural sacrifices, 228. — Sect. III. The same proved by the gene- 
ral opinions of men, 228. — Sect. IV. Proof from the idea of Redemp- 
tion, 228. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

Objections against a Definite and Real Atonement. — Section I. 
Universalist's objection — false in fact and no valid objection, 234. — 
Sect. II. Theory of indefinite Atonement — two-fold: 1. That Christ 
died for all men alike. 2. That he died for no man or set of men 
at all, but simply to satisfy public justice, — 1. The former runs 
into Universalism — or into the 2d, which is an abandonment of the 
whole doctrine of Atonement: Remarks, 1. The distinction of Justice 
into commutative, distributive, and public, has no foundation in the 
Word of God. 2. Nor in sound philosophy. 3. Even on this dis- 
tinction, the death of Christ would be the most horrible injustice, 
240. — Sect. III. The intrinsic sufficiency of the Atonement, 249. — 
Sect. IV. But Christ died in some sense for all men, 252. — Sect. V. 
All men enjoy a respite from death and hell, in consequence of 
Christ's atonement, 253, 

1* 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

Objections against the doctrine of Limited Atonement, stated 
AND answered. — Section I. Arguments from the term, World, an- 
swered, 255. — Sect. II. The argument from the general term, All, 
stated and answered, 260. 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

The Objection against Strict, Definite Atonement founded upon 
THE General Gospel Call, stated and refuted, 273. 

CHAPTER XIX. 

The Saviour's Intercession. — Section I. The meaning of the term 
and thing, 284. — Sect. II. Christ's plea on behalf of his people, 297. 
— Sect. III. Christ's claim on behalf of his people, 290. 

CHAPTER XX. 

On Saving or Justifying Faith. — Section I. — Faith as a general 
principle, 295.— -Sect. II. Faith in God a duty, 299.— Sect. III. 
Faith — saving faith, a grace, 301. — Sect. IV. Difficulties and Objec- 
tions, — (1) If the act of believing be involuntary it can have no 
moral character. (2) Your view of faith, makes it a duty of the law. 
(3) Such faith can scarcely be called even the instrumental cause of sal- 
vation, 303.— Sect. V. On the appropriation of Faith, 308.— Sect. VI. 
The object of Saving Faith, or the precise thing which is believed, 
310. — Sect. VII. Is assurance of the essence of saving faith? 312.— 
Sect. VIII. How the saved are united actually to Christ, 315. — Sect. 
IX. The doctrine of imputation applied, 317. 

CHAPTER XXI. 
Justification secures its Subjects for ever, 320. 

CHAPTER XXH. 

Good Works — thejr Necessity and True Position. — Section I. The 
necessity of good works, 325. — Sect. II. The true position of good 
Works, 326. 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

On Sanctification. — Section I. Definitionof the term, 330. — Sect. IL 
Sanctification implies in its subjects, pollution and defect, which 
prove its necessity, 331. — Sect. IH. Sanctification, a work of the Holy 
Spirit, 332.— Sect. IV. Regeneration, 334.— Sect. V. The inhabita- 
tion of the Spirit, 336.— Sect. VI. The spiritual warfare, 337.— 
Sect. VII. Positive Sanctification, progressive for ever, 341. 



ADVEETISEMENT. 



In revising this work for a new edition, the author has 
carefully considered all the criticisms passed upon it, 
which have come to his knowledge, especially those point- 
ing out its faults ; and has adopted most of the sugges- 
tions they contain. The objections of the Princeton 
Review to part of the chapter on saving faith, he considers 
as really not vaHd. His own views and those of the review- 
ers, he considers identical ; and he feels persuaded, that the 
critics would not have found any occasion for objection, 
but for the essay of Lord Brougham and others, which 
they had recently perused, and the doctrine of which, they 
thought might be engrafted on that maintained in this 
treatise. And this indeed might possibly have been done. 
A upas scion might be engrafted on the stock of an olive, 
but to make it grow there would exceed the power of the 
most skilful propagator. Nevertheless, the phraseology 
has been so materially modified, as to cut off all possibility 
of any plausible perversion of this kind. 

Two suggestions of the Review — both of them of minor 
consequence — have not been complied with. One relates 
to the title : it was thought to be too limited ; yet the 
reviewers intimate the very reason of its selection ; viz. 
that justification is the central doctrine of Christianity, 
around which all others revolve, and with which all 
revolve round the central sun of eternal truth. It is, 
therefore, not thought necessary that the title should even 



8 ADVERTISEMENT. 

now be changed, although a short chapter on Sanctification 
has been added. 

The other suggestion which the author feels constrained 
to decline, is that relative to the philosophical arrangement 
of the matter, and the metaphysical turn which the discus- 
sion sometimes takes. As to the first branch, it has long 
appeared to him, that the more perfectly philosophical any 
arrangement is, the more perfectly adapted it becomes to 
the common, popular mind ; for the nearer it comes to the 
natural order of human thought. If our analysis be 
thorough before we begin to compose, and our synthesis 
be found under the laws of suggestion, the thoughts must 
necessarily follow in the most natural order ; which, for 
that very reason, will be most easily received and retained 
by the common mind. True philosophy is simply common 
sense. 

As to the other, he is aware, that the very name, meta' 
j)liysics^ creates a prejudice. Nevertheless, he has yet to 
learn, that Anglo-Saxon metaphysics — the metaphysics of 
the inductive school, have ever mystified the human intel- 
lect. But even if in some degree it had been the case, 
how can the philosophy of mind be avoided, when dealing 
with such doctrines as moral agency, volition, free-will, 
ability, divine decrees, &c? If obscurity, after the author's 
best endeavours to avoid it, is still found in the book, he 
begs the reader to ask himself, whether it may not be inhe- 
rent in the subject? And before he censures its meta- 
physics, let him ask, whether theology itself be not a 
branch of the higher metaphysics? 

And, now, the author commends once more this little 
work to God and his Church, hoping, praying, and be- 
lieving, that He will make it a blessing to her, and an 
humble instrument in the promotion of His own glory. 

Lexington, Va, October^ 1849. 



PEEFACE. 



That an age, claiming distinction above most which have preceded 
it, for benevolent enterprise in disseminating the Bible and Christianity, 
should, notv^'ithstanding, be characterized by indistinct views of the 
great doctrines of religion, may at first seem contradictory. Such, how- 
ever, it appears to me, is the true state of the Christian world at pre- 
sent. A general laxness prevails as to doctrinal opinions. Indeed, not 
unfrequently, indifference is deemed a virtue ; and a man felicitates 
himself upon his liberality, because he feels no peculiar attachment to 
any particular religious creed. Opinions in politics are of great con- 
sequence — opinions in law, in medicine, in science, in the arts ; every 
where but in religion, to be without any fixed opinions, is deemed dis- 
honourable and unworthy of a noble and generous spirit. There is no 
illiberality in every other department of thought and enterprise, in a 
man's holding and defending a series of fixed doctrines; but by a 
strange inconsistency, this age denounces as bigotry and narrowness of 
spirit, the steadfast maintenance of the revealed system of rehgious 
truth. This feature of the age — which may be correctly designated the 
bigotry of liberalism — may be traced in indistinct lines on the fair coun- 
tenance of the daughter of Zion, and rudely defines the measure of her 
conformity to this world. Hence the diminished attention to doctrines. 
Hence the singular fact, that in a land teeming with Bibles, and Bible 
Societies, and Bible classes, and helps to Bible interpretation, Bible 
exposition is nearly banished from all their pulpits. What pastor ever 
thinks of expounding the sacred books in any continuous series of 
exercises'! What congregation would endure an uninterrupted course 
of lectures on any portion of Scripture? What preacher would ven- 
ture to suspend his reputation on the delivery of fifty-two lectures in 
the year on the Epistle to the Romans, or that to the Hebrews'? My 
field of observation is very limited ; but my impression is, that this 
most profitable description of pulpit labour has sunk into general 



10 PREFACE. 

neglect : and hence the deficiency of doctrinal knowledge : and hence 
the laxness of opinion : and hence the distractions and disputations in 
the church. With the ancient practice of lecturing continuously on 
some book of Scripture, has fallen into disuse the reading of the old 
standard doctrinal writers. Books are so easily made, and so much 
under the dominion of fashion, that a leather cover, enclosing four hun- 
dred pages, is opened reluctantly and soon closed, lest its musty odour 
should become offensive. We are hence obliged, though at some risk, 
to put the old wine into new bottles. Hence the present publication. 
Could Boston, and Owen, and Witherspoon, and Edwards, find studious 
readers, it were unnecessary to press this little work upon public atten- 
tion. The author, apprehensive that the subject on which he treats is 
much misunderstood — that it is of prime importance — that ignorance of 
it leads to serious consequences — and that a new book, from almost any 
source, will be more likely to be read than the more weighty and 
laboured productions of by-gone days, has conceived the present plan, 
and now offers it to the Christian pubhc. 

There is no new doctrine in these pages. There is very little new 
illustration. There is, he hopes, some novelty in the modes of argu- 
mentation, and perhaps of exposition. He also supposes, that the plan 
of the discussion has some claims to originality ; whether this be so, 
and whether it be an advantage, the reader must judge. As to method, 
the scheme of the treatise is synthetic, as will be perceived by the 
scholar, upon a mere inspection of the contents. It begins with the 
simple elements of truth, and ascends to the highest doctrines of the 
moral system. 

If there is any thing peculiar in the general design of the work, dis- 
tinguishing it from other treatises on Justification, it will be found in 
the identification — or at least, the attempt to identify the great principles 
of God's covenants with the first Adam and the second, and their use, 
in man's justification, with the fundamental principles of moral rule, 
whose application in human government must and will secure the 
highest measure of human freedom and happiness. I have laboured, 
with what success the reader will judge, to make it appear that the 
doctrines of the Bible, embraced in my subject, contain the very 
essence of all morality, and form the substratum of all sound, social, 
civil and political government — that there are not two systems of moral- 
ity ; one for the Christian and one for the citizen ; one for heaven and 
the visible church, its vestibule, and another for earth and the powers 
of this world. But, on the contrary, that the moral being, man, is a 
unity ; and all the laws that can bind his conscience, are found in the 



PREFACE. 11 

Bible : and their application to him as a member of civil society, con- 
stitutes government. Thus, it appears to me, much gain must accrue 
to the cause of truth, by forcing away from men the delusion of a two- 
fold sytem of morals, wholly or largely dissociate from each other: 
and shutting them up to the conviction, that the identical doctrines 
which constitute the substratum of republican government and sbcial 
order, are embraced in Christianity, and by them all men will be judged 
in the great day. 

In the exposition of Scripture, I have followed the method of induc- 
tion — referring to the parallel texts, and collating all the passages where 
a term or phrase occurs ; and thus enabling the reader to make Scrip- 
ture the interpreter of Scripture. It has been my object, by this 
method, to bring down even verbal criticism ; and that where the origi- 
nals are concerned, to the comprehension of the simple English reader. 
I have thought that such criticism is not only useful, but may be enter- 
taining and interesting to such readers. The best evidence of good 
preaching is, that it sets all hearers to search the Bible. The hope is 
entertained, that such critical examinations as are interspersed among 
the following pages, may operate in this way. 

Another feature of the plan, is its philosophical arrangement. The 
design has been to connect the various parts together in such manner 
as will be most easily followed up. For this reason, I have endeavour- 
to arrange the matter, according to those laws of mind, by which the 
train of thought is regulated ; so that every preceding vehicle, with its 
treasure, shall have a certain aptitude to draw after it the one precisely 
adapted to it, and which will secure a similar sequence. 

From this, and the occasional indulgence in argumentation, and even 
in metaphysical disquisition and mental philosophy, it may, perhaps, be 
thought, that the mass of plain readers will not be accommodated: 
whereas, for them chiefly has the book been written. Should this arise 
as an objection, I reply, that sound philosophy is nothing more than 
common sense. Let the mental philosopher and metaphysician keep 
out technical terms, or explain them clearly, and the common mind 
will comprehend his philosophy. It is moreover, undeniable, that the 
moral system of the Bible is the most stupendously grand system of 
philosophy the world has ever beheld. Christianity is a system of 
practical and experimental philosophy. Its doctrines are founded on 
its facts, and I never could see any reason why the Christian ministry — 
the authorized teachers of this philosophy, should labour to conceal its 
beauties and its glory, by prese/iting only detached parts of the system, 
without any well directed efforts at combining part with part, that the 



12 PREFACE. 

whole edifice might rise, in its beauty and grandeur, before the 
admiring eyes of those who are to dwell therein for ever. 

Besides, it is the duty of the ministry to go before the flock. There 
ought to be constantly an ascending movement along the scale of 
intelligence. There is, therefore, no just objections to well timed and 
clear criticism ; nor, occasionally, to the philosophical arrangement and 
discussion of such parts of the subject as admit, and indeed require it. 

With these remarks, the author commends this little performance to 
the indulgence of his kind readers — entreating them to bear in mind, 
that it has been prepared in the hurried intervals of a laborious avoca- 
tion ; and has been hastened through the press under circumstances 
very unfavourable to accuracy. Imperfect as it and all human 
productions are, he entrusts it to the guidance of that gracious Saviour, 
whose glory it is designed to promote ; hoping, praying and believing, 
that he will make it a means of blessing to many who shall be found, 
in the great day of final accounts, arrayed with him in the spotless 
robes of Immanuel's Righteousness. 



A TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE MORAL GOVERNMENT OF GOD IN GENERAL. 
SECTION L 

THE CREATOR ABSOLUTELY SUPREME. 

By an original law of our being we are led to infer 
causes from their effects. Changes are constantly 
occurring around us ; we observe them. We look for 
their causes among the events of the past; we look 
for their effects among the contingencies of the future. 
"We reason from the one to the other, and the thought 
rarely occurs to our minds, that, perhaps, after all, 
there is no such connexion as is implied in the terms 
cause and effect. The one event indeed follows the 
other in almost uniform succession, but who can show 
a reason for it ? Who can reveal the chain and dis- 
play to our view the links of connexion ? Can the 
wise men of this world unveil the mysteries of nature ? 
Can Newton, with all his philosophy, tell us why a 
stone, projected upwards, descends to the earth? If 
then human wisdom utterly fails, in the simplest ope- 
rations of nature ; if man with all his boasted hnoiv- 
ledge cannot explain the nature of cause and effect, 
and show in what it lies, will he deny all causation? 
Will he refuse to act on the belief that certain things 
do always succeed certain other things ? Will he 
refuse to reason, and thereby to acquire knowledge ? 
Because he cannot dive to the bottom and bring up 
from the unfathomable stores of nature all her pearls 
and gold, will he refuse to pick up beauteous pebbles 
on the strand? 

No : despite all his pride, he is constrained to rea- 
2 



14 THE CEEATOR ABSOLUTELY SUPREME. 

son from effects to causes, and from causes to effects. 
Assuming the existence of a connexion, yet ignorant 
of what it is, and how it operates, he proceeds to rea- 
son, and does reason as correctly perhaps as if he 
knew the whole mystery, and rests in his conclusions 
wdth perfect confidence. On this very process of rea- 
soning depend all our conclusions in reference to the 
business of this life. The farmer sows his grain; the 
merchant freights his ships; the manufacturer pur- 
chases his materials and his machinery- — all because 
they believe that causes and effects are connected 
together, and will ever continue to follow each other. 

Thus it is we trace such effects to their causes, and 
these again to their causes, and these again to theirs, 
and so at last reach the conclusion, that a Great First 
Cause there must be — ''of causes mighty, cause un- 
caused." ''Thy kingdom ruleth over all," and "thy 
dominion endureth throughout all generations: the 
eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them their 
meat in due season." This grand argument, in proof 
of the divine existence, depends for its whole force 
upon that law of our minds, by which we are irresisti- 
bly impelled to believe that every effect must have a 
cause. This argument is accounted irrefragably con- 
clusive. All men admit its force : to have stated it 
clearly has enrolled Paley and Butler among the bene- 
factors of the human race. 

But now, if the argument which follows up the de- 
pendence of material effects upon their causes brings 
us to such a satisfactory conclusion; much more shall 
not that which begins with the dependence of mind 
upon mind, lead to results most perfectly satisfactory ? 
If matter could not create itself, could spirit? Igno- 
rant of a cause adequate to the production of matter, 
the ancient heathen philosophers assumed its eternity. 
How much more reasonably might the inference be 
deduced that spirit is eternal. Our souls have ex- 
isted from eternity, or they have been created by our- 
selves or by some other being. For the belief of their 
eternal past existence we have no evidence. For the 
belief of their self-creation we have not capacity ; the 



THE CREATURE ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT. 15 

very thought is absurd. For the belief of their crea- 
tion by an uncreated First Cause, we have capacity, 
and evidence adapted to it. The belief that spirit is 
the result of creating power is as full and perfect as 
that matter was created. God is the father of our 
spirits in a sense far higher than that in which the 
term is or can be applied to signify our relation to 
man. He formed us, and the same power which pro- 
duced us out of nothing, sustains the existence it com- 
menced. In him we live and move and exist. 

Let the reader mark narrowly the emotions of his 
own mind, when the question is asked, whether God 
has a right of absolute control over all the creatures 
of his hand. What is the result ? Does not his heart 
revolt at the thought — the rights of God? Who is 
this that talks about rights ? And dares he interro- 
gate the Creator on a question of boundary ? Can 
he (Avithout impiety) agitate the subject of territorial 
limits ? Will he venture to inquire whether God's 
rights over him and all, are uncontrolled and abso- 
lute? Has not the potter power over the clay? 
Surely, if any truth commends itself, as it w^ere, in- 
tuitively, to the heart and conscience of man, it is the 
absoluteness of the divine right, authority, power, over 
all created existence. 

SECTION IL 

THE CREATURE ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT. 

This is but the counterpart of the preceding — a 
different mode of expressing the same thought. He 
^'that formeth the spirit of man within him," sus- 
taineth that spirit and the body which it controls. In 
reference to our bodies we have no self-sustaining 
power. If his hand is withdrawn, we return to dust. 
Equally dependent upon the sustaining power of God, 
is the soul of man. Its immortalitv is not a matter of 
physical, but only of moral necessity: it can no more 
exist without God than the body can. If any man 
ask, lioiu God keeps us in being; the answer must be 
—we know not: the fact only is known. Modes of 



16 THE WILL OF GOD THE FOUNDATION 

existence are among the secret things that belong 
unto the Lord our God. And therefore, perhaps, even 
the inquiry, whether the mode of dependence of ra- 
tional nature and of material substance be the same, 
may be improper. Certainly, at least, wisdom and 
piety both dictate the exercise of great prudence and 
humility in its prosecution. 

We are in the constant habit of describing the 
government of God over material things, under the 
notion of laws of matter ; and sometimes we even 
seem to think, that when we have given names to the 
different operations and orders of things, we have ex- 
plained them. The truth is far otherwise. The names 
are a cover for our ignorance, and are useful only as 
arbitrary signs of the things, as to the general order 
of their occurrence. They explain nothing. Now if 
this be so in reference to material things, how much 
more may we expect difficulty in forming our concep- 
tions and communicating our thoughts about the laws 
by which God governs the spiritual world, or even 
our own nature, consisting of both matter and spirit? 
To this form of the divine administration, we apply 
the name of Moral Giovernment ; and although much 
remains inexplicable, yet the dependence of all intelli- 
gent creatures upon God, is no doubt as real as that 
of the brute creation and of inert matter. To point 
out some leading facts and principles is what we pro- 
pose in this chapter ; and the first shall be in answer 
to the question — what is the ground of moral obliga- 
tion ? 

SECTION m. 

THE WILL OF GOD THE FOUNDATION OF MORAL OBLIGATION. 

The first proof we present is the strong presump- 
tion arising from the universal practices of human 
legislation. Under all forms of government among 
men, from the most perfect autocracy to the purest 
democracy, the expressed ivill of the legislature — the 
law-making power, is authority — is law. So fully have 
men adopted this principle, that they very often forget 
that there is a ivill superior to theirs, by which they 



OF MORAL OBLIGATION. 17 

are bound, and beyond which they cannot legislate 
with the hope of binding the human conscience. And 
this is farther evident from the fact, that the inter- 
preters of written law always inquire what was the 
wdll of the legislature — what did they intend by the 
language ? If that can be ascertained, there is an end 
to the controversy; the law is settled and must be 
obeyed. In other words, the citizen is hound by it. 

Secondly. That the will of God is the basis of moral 
obligation, may be argued from the difficulty, the im- 
possibility of establishing any other. If men are not 
bound to do the will of God, because it is Ilis will, what 
then is the true reason for obedience ? The happiness 
of man, say some. Whatever will promote human 
enjoyment upon the whole and in the highest degree, 
is right and ought to be done. To this there are seve- 
ral serious objections. 

First, It makes the creature's happiness the supreme 
end of his creation, contrary to the testimonies of God 
on this subject. ''Even every one that is called by my 
name ; for I have created him for my glory." Isa. xliii. 
7. ''All things were created by him and for him." 
Col. i. 16. " Thou hast created all things, and for 
thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. iv. 11. 

A second objection is found in the fact, that man, 
short sighted and imperfect in knowledge, could never 
be certain whether he w^as bound to do a particular act 
or not. For if the obligation rests in its adaptation to 
promote his happiness 'upon the whole, he must know 
whether it will so operate before he can feel the obli- 
gation. But can man, in one case out of a hundred, 
determine whether the measure proposed will in the 
end be beneficial to him? Can he run down the con- 
sequences of an act into eternity and weigh all its 
results ? Must he remain unconscious of moral obliga- 
tion until he knows the certainty that the act pro- 
posed will promote his good upon the whole? Or must 
he take his first . and hasty opinion for a guide ? In 
that case, it is manifest he can never be certain that 
he is right. In this, he is the mere creature of blind 
2* 



18 WILL OF GOD — MORAL OBLIGATION. 

passion. Whatever he may, from selfish feeling, think 
best for him, he is obliged to do. 

A third objection, therefore, is, that this account of 
moral obligation runs into absolute selfishness. The 
immediate tendency, and the remote consequences are, 
to carry away the heart from God and concentrate its 
afi*ections in self. The facility with which the Sabbath 
breaker, the profane swearer, the drunkard, the de- 
bauchee, can engraft his favourite scion upon this 
stock, ought to insure its excision. What then is the 
basis of obligation ? 

The eternal fitness of things^ say others. But to 
this the above reasoning is in part applicable, and a 
sufficient reply. Who is to judge whether a given act 
be or be not agreeable to the eternal fitness of things? 
Must man be released from moral obligation, until after 
he perceives in a proposed action its adaptation to the 
eternal fitness of things ? AVho then, of finite mortals, 
will ever feel the bonds of duty ? 

We are thrown back upon the vdll of God as the 
only ground of moral obligation. Man is bound to do 
what God commands, and to abstain from what He 
forbids, simply because He commands and forbids. 
Beyond and above this there is no reason. Direct 
reference to this reason is essential to moral virtue. 
Here again, appeal is made to the general sense of 
mankind. We always estimate the worth of an action 
by the measure of its regard to this standard. God's 
will was, that Israel should sulBFer most distressing 
calamities at the hand of the Assyrian. ^^ Against 
the people of my wTath will I give him a charge, to 
take the spoil and to take the prey, and to tread them 
down like the mire of the streets." But we award no 
virtue to the Assyrian, for the obvious reason, that he 
had no regard at all to the divine will in all he did. 
" Howbeit, he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart 
think so." Isa. x. 7. When an action is done regard- 
less of God's will, no honour is shown to Him, and the 
practical judgment of mankind refuses the award of 
virtue. 

Such, finally, is the doctrine of the Bible. It knows 



WILL OF GOD — RULE OF DUTY. 19 

no foundation of right or wrong — no obligation but 
God's will. But as the same passages may often 
establish the tAvo points, viz. the obligation and the 
rule of action, let us take them in connexion. 

SECTION IV. 

THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD THE RULE OF DUTY. 

It is self-evident that it cannot rule, direct, govern 
us, unless it is applied. Accordingly, it has been made 
known in divers manners and at sundry times. Let us 
keep our eye upon the position, that the rule and its 
obligation are the will of God made known. Multi- 
tudes of passages might be quoted, a sample follows. 
''Thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest 
thereof, thou shalt surely die." Gen. ii. 17. ''Make 
thee an ark of Gopher wood, &c." — vi. 14. "He 
doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and 
among the inhabitants of the earth." Dan. iv. 85. "I 
will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I 
will have compassion on whom I will have compas- 
sion." Rom. ix. 15. "I seek not to do mine own will, 
but the w^ill of the Father which hath sent me." John 
V. 30. " My meat is to do the will of him that sent 
me, and to finish his work." John iv. 34 : vi. 38. "I 
delight to do thy will, my God: yea, thy law is 
within my heart." Psalm xi. 8. "Whosoever shall 
do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my 
sister and mother." Mark iii. 35. 

From these passages, no one can well avoid seeing 
that — 1. God's own rule of action is His own will; 
higher and holier there can be none. 

2. To the will of God, Jesus, the Saviour of men, 
uniformly referred, as containing the obligation and 
the rule of his own action. Even when the desires of 
his perishable nature — his animal body, were to escape 
suffering, yet his soul felt the binding obligation of 
the divine will; "not as I will, but as Thou wilt." 
Reader, does not this settle the question? If the 
Son of God looked no higher— no lower — no farther; 
why should you ? 



20 WILL OF GOD — EULE OF DUTY. 

3. To man, compliance with the will of God, 
because it is the will of God, is the perfection of moral 
virtue. He who does so comply is a son of God — a 
brother of the Lord of glory, the man of Calvary. No 
hio!:her motive can draw, no stron2:er oblig-ation can 
bind us. A loftier aim exceeds our conception; a 
lower one falls short of God's requirement and our 
high destinies. 

Let it not be said; ^' What if God should will ha- 
tred to be a virtue, and love to be a vice: would this 
make the one blameworthy and the other praisewor- 
thy ?" I answer, ''What if God should will Himself out 
of existence, and before He ceased to live, will Satan 
to be the Lord of the universe?" These hypotheses 
are equally impossible and absurd; and can therefore 
never lead to truth. God cannot will or do any thing 
contrary to his own nature ; and there is no nature of 
things, or eternal fitness of things above, and beyond, 
and independent of, the Author of things: — no fata 
above Jehovah. 

It remains only to inquire how this will is made 
known to us. And to this the answer is prompt, viz. 
In his two books — the book of providence and the 
book of revelation. 

In, God's book of providence he is daily displaying 
his will. All that occurs around us, whatever be the 
agency, is according to his will. Whether prosperity 
or adversity be our lot, we are called upon to acquiesce 
without a murmur. 

In his book of revelation he has recorded the great 
principles of his government, both preceptively and 
practically. He prescribes rules of faith and rules of 
duty. He addresses his law and his gospel, his pre- 
cepts and his promises, and his examples to be shunned 
or to be imitated, to the proper faculties of our nature, 
which constitute us rational and accountable beings. 

In addition to the above, the reader's attention is 
invited to a striking fact, viz. that whenever the heart 
of man is pierced and his soul is bowed down before 
the majesty of heaven — whenever he begins to feel, in 
the deep consciousness of his agitated bosom, that his 



RATIONAL INTELLIGENCE — MORAL AGENCY. 21 

accountabilities are fearful and must be met, he in- 
quires, according to the doctrine we advocate, ''What 
ivilt thou have me to do ?" Does not every man who 
has been taught of God know this to be true ? Is 
there not, therefore, a revealed testimony in every 
sanctified heart to the correctness of the rule and the 
reality of its obligation ? Unquestionably this is the 
very principle of Christian fortitude and Christian 
heroism. Under its genuine influences the renewed 
man has only one inquiry in reference to any proposed 
enterprise— zs it the will of God? Satisfied of this, 
his heart tells him, that it must be done. Difficulties, 
dangers, peril, privations, hardships, persecution, rack, 
torture, burning, death — all present no obstacle; on- 
ward he presses in the path marked out for him by the 
will of his Father. Obedience to that^ is his only re- 
sponsibility. 

SECTION V. 

RATIONAL INTELLIGENCE NECESSARY TO MORAL AGENCY. 

In all that has been said regarding the obligation 
and rule of action, it has been assumed, thus far, that 
for every talent he possesses man is accountable. 
Nor shall any attempt now be made to prove the cor- 
rectness of the assumption. It shall still be assumed, 
that where God has given, he will require ; and this 
in proportion to the amount of the gift. This truth 
is so fully and so plainly set forth in the parable of 
the talents, that it seems utterly useless to delay for 
the purpose of either illustration or proof. 

The position here presented is simply this ; that if 
man (or any other creature) has not reason — if he has 
no capacity to compare ideas, to mark their agreement 
or difference, and draw conclusions and infer results 
of conduct, he would not be moral : that is, he would 
not be under a law or will revealed, and liable to 
punishment for its violation, or to reward for its obe- 
dience. We never think of treating idiots or infants, 
or brutes, as subjects of moral law. Let the evidence 
be presented, which shall convince a bench of judges 



22 RATIONAL INTELLIGENCE — MORAL AGENCY. 

that the prisoner before them, on a charge of murder, 
was devoid of reason at the time the deed was perpe- 
trated, and they immediately and without hesitation 
decide that it is not murder. It may be in evidence 
that the deed was voluntary — the result of design; 
still in the absence of reason, th.ej will not pronounce 
him guilty of murder. Such is the common sense of 
mankind: such the doctrine of Scripture. The un- 
happy maniac is pitied, but not punished. 

On this point there is no controversy. But whether 
rational intelligence is all that is necessary to moral 
accountability, is a different question, and one involved 
in some difficulty, and not without some importance to 
our future inquiries. Yet this question is not raised 
here with a view to its full discussion, and the hope of 
its satisfactory solution ; but simply to give occasion 
to a remark or two, preparatory to our next position. 

The first remark is, that a process of reasoning may 
occur, to which in itself we can ascribe no moral cha- 
racter. What are the moral features of a mathematical 
demonstration ? Using the terms in a moral sense, can 
you say it is right or wrong ? Thus, it would seem, that 
as mere reasGning^ it is devoid of moral attribute. This 
is probably the reason why Edwards reckons the un- 
derstanding a natural faculty. He describes natural 
inability as existing "when we cannot do a thing if 
we will, because what is most commonly called nature 
does not allow of it, or because of some impeding de- 
fect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will; either in 
the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or 
external objects." AVorks, ii. 85. Here, it is mani- 
fest, he places the understanding, that is, the rational 
faculty among the natural, as contradistinguished from 
the moral powers. 

Hence it has been argued that brutes reason, and 
the case of the dog who scented his master's footsteps, 
has been adduced as proof. When he came to the 
triple fork in the road, and had scented along two of 
the branches, and perceiving no scent in either, he 
instantly took the third without smelling at all. The 
process^ is simple : one of the three the master took, 



VOLITION OR CHOICE — MORAL AGENCY. 23 

but he did not take the right, nor the middle, there- 
fore he did take the left. But if brutes reason, are 
they moral? Men do not so account it. They have 
never proceeded on the belief of it. May we not infer, 
that something more than simply a capacity to reason 
is included in our idea of moral agency ? 

SECTION VI. 

VOLITION, OR CHOICE, NECESSARY TO MORAL AGENCY. 

''^Ye must remember, that volition or willing^ is an 
act of the mind directing its thought to the produc- 
tion of any action, and thereby exerting its pov/er to 
produce it. The will is nothing but a power in the mind 
to direct the operative faculties of a man to motion or 
rest, as far as they depend on such direction." Locke, 
b. ii. ch. 21. " The tvill (without any metaphysical 
refining) is that by which the mind chooses any thing. 
The faculty of the will is that power, or principle of 
mind, by which it is capable of choosing ; an act of 
the will is the same as an act of choosing or choice.'^ 
Edwards, ii. 15. When the herdsmen of Abraham 
and the herdsmen of his nephevf had, by their strife, 
endangered the peace of the parties, the patriarch 
proposed a separation; and condescendingly offered 
the young man his choice of the whole land; "Then 
Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan." He took a 
view of the different localities : he observed the pas- 
ture lands, the hills, the vales, the springs and 
brooks of each ; he weighed the motives ; he balanced 
in his own mind the advantages and the disadvan- 
tages, and as the most promising prospects were — 
as the motives were — so was his choice. This is 
volition — an act of the mind "directing the opera- 
tive faculties of a man to motion or rest" — and 
so Lot forthwith descended into the plain. Now we 
say that volition or choice is necessary to constitute 
moral agency. If a man is compelled by any force 
or physical strength to do any act, good or bad, it is 
obviously not an act of his mind, and all men hold 
him irresponsible. For it is not any meie physical 



24 VOLITION OR CHOICE NECESSARY 

operation to which we attach the idea of right and 
wrong — of moral or immoral ; but it is the act of the 
mind, which here is not expressed. Physical acts are 
spoken of as right or wrong, only as they are signifi- 
cant of mental operations. This distinction governs 
the practice of mankind in all civilized communities. 
Involuntary homicide is not murder. On the other 
hand, if a man waylay his neighbour with intent to 
kill him, and yet by his gun missing fire, he does not 
kill or injure him, all men admit that in the sight of 
God he is a murderer: because ^A^rg was volition ; the 
mind acted. Here physical ability is not necessary to 
moral action, nor connected with it. In the other case, 
the physical ability existed and was exerted, and yet 
there was no moral character to it. Wherever there 
is no volition, there is no accountability. Thus far 
only, it may be necessary for us to go, for our pur- 
poses, at least for the present. And thus far there is 
almost no contrariety of opinion. Should the reader 
desire to throw in here the question of freedom of will, 
I would simply remark, with Edwards, (ii. 38,) and 
Locke, (b. ii. ch. 21,) and Dickinson, (p. 37,) that 
freedom is not predicable of the wilL The first says; 
"To talk of liberty or the contrary, as belonging to 
the very ivill itself^ is not to speak good sense; if we 
judge of sense and nonsense by the original and pro- 
per signification of words. For the ivill itself is not 
an agent that has a will; the power of choosing itself 
has not a power of choosing." Locke also says; '^The 
question itself, viz. whether man's will be free^ or no? 
is altogether improper ; and it is as insignificant to ask 
whether man's ivill be free, as to ask whether his 
sleep be swift, or his virtue square; liberty being as 
little applicable to the ivill as swiftness or motion is 
to sleep, or squareness to virtue." (ii. 24, 14.) 

Edwards states the Pelagian notion of liberty thus — 
vol. ii. 39. "]. That it consists in a self-determining 
poiver in the will, or a certain sovereignty the will has 
over itself, and its own acts, whereby it determines its 
own volitions; so as not to be dependent in its deter- 
minations, on any cause without itself, nor determined 



TO MORAL AGENCY. 25 

by any thing prior to its own acts. 2. Indifference 
belongs to liberty in their notion of it, or that the 
mind, previous to the act of volition, be in equilihno, 
3. Contingency is another thing that belongs and is 
essential to it; not in the common acceptation of the 
word, as that has been already explained, but as op- 
posed to all necessity^ or any fixed and certain con- 
nexion with some previous ground or reason of its 
existence." To refute this doctrine is the grand de- 
sign of Edwards, in his treatise on the will. This, 
every careful reader of that treatise knows ; and whe- 
ther the first of the errors above, viz. that the will has a 
self-determining power — which is the chief and capital 
error — be not the radical principle of all the 'modern 
improvements in theology, the reader must judge. It 
is foreign to the plan of this work to enter into that 
controversy. Should the providential call for its dis- 
cussion exist, after this undertaking shall have been 
completed, as it does now, the writer purposes to turn 
his thoughts in that direction. 

Volition is necessary to moral agency. But it is 
still a question whether volition, and even this com- 
bined with rational intelligence, is sufficient of itself 
to constitute it. Are these all that are necessary to 
render a being morally accountable for his conduct? 
This is a philosophical question, and yet an interesting 
and a profitable one. But brevity is indispensable. It 
will be agreed on all sides that reasoning is necessary 
to volition. There can be no choice where there is no 
thought and no capacity to compare one thought with 
another. The weighing of motives and the yielding 
of the mind to the stronger, implies and includes the 
exercise of reason. The precise question then is, 
whether in the act of choice there is necessarily any 
morality. Can there be volition — an act of choice to 
which the terms right or wrong, moral or immoral, 
cannot hQ applied? If there can, then volition and 
the measure of reason necessary to it, are not every 
thing required in a moral agent. Let it therefore be 
asked, whether the act of mind, which directs my 
lifting of this pen rather than that one, is necessarily 



26 A MORAL SENSE 

moral. Would it have been sinful for me to have 
eJiosen that pen? Unless this last act of choice would 
have been thought wrong, or immoral, can it be said 
that the other w^as right and moral ? But how can 
the idea of right and wrong exist, except in reference 
to a rule of right ; and where is the rule in this case ? 
Or rather, how could I have the idea of a rule of right, 
if I possessed only reason and volition ? Did not the 
dog, in the case alluded to just now, perform an act of 
reason — did he not exercise volition? Human lan- 
guage every where supposes that animals have a power 
of choice ; they exercise volition : but something more 
is requisite to constitute a moral agent. 

SECTION VII. 

A MORAL SENSE NECESSARY TO A MORAL AGENT. 

That the properties and powers of our animal na- 
ture are most intimately connected with the intel- 
lectual, is most obvious to our consciousness. Yet 
are they very distinct and separable. So, the intel- 
lectual powders are distinct from the moral, but more 
intimately connected than the preceding. Still it does 
not appear to me that they are necessarily blended 
and confused. A capacity to be influenced by motives 
presented through the reasoning faculty, does not 
involve accountability, independently on the character 
of the motives. ^^To moral agency,". says Edwards, 
(ii. 40,) "belongs a moral faculty^ or sense of moral 
good and evil, or of such a thing as desert or worthi- 
ness, of praise or blame, reward or punishment ; and 
a capacity which an agent has of being influenced in 
his actions by moral inducements or motives exhibited 
to the view of understanding and reason, to engage to 
a conduct agreeable to the moral faculty." A little 
below he observes, '' The brute creatures are not moral 
agents," — because — ''they have no moral faculty, or 
sense of desert, and do not act from choice guided by 
understanding, or with a capacity of reasoning and 
reflecting, but only from instinct, and are not capable 
of being influenced by moral inducements." To all 



NECESSAEY TO A MORAL AGENT. 27 

this I heartily subscribe, except that, probably rea- 
soning and choice, which are here denied to brutes, 
are taken in, notwithstanding, under the general term 
instiJict. What is instinct? Is it not simply that 
measure (undefined, perhaps undefinable) of reason 
and choice which the Creator has allotted to brutes? 

The time has been when the doctrine of a moral 
sense was controverted on philosophical grounds. Its 
advocates were challenged for proof; and proof of 
such kind was demanded, as was utterly inconsistent 
with the nature of the subject. Mathematical evi- 
dence, on a moral subject ! Mathematical evidence, 
that man has a conscience ! You might as well de- 
mand mathematical evidence that the dagger of Brutus 
pierced the robe of Caesar — that Arnold attempted to 
betray his country ! What then is the proof of the 
existence of a moral sense — a conscience — a faculty 
or power in man of perceiving right and wrong, and 
feeling the force of moral obligation? I answer, 
1. The very existence of these terms; if they express 
any ideas at all, these ideas or thoughts must have an 
existence in the human mind. If all human languages 
have terms expressive of these very thoughts, it proves 
the universality of the principles or powers of mind, 
by which alone the thoughts themselves can be per- 
ceived. 2. The ideas of right and wrong can be traced 
universally among men, by their other language and 
the customs and manners connected with criminal 
jurisprudence. But thirdly and chiefly — The internal 
and irresistible consciousness of every living man. 
And here moral science stands on lofty ground. She 
is not dependent on any external powers. She carries 
with herself and in herself, as it were, the very evi- 
dence for which many other sciences are dependent. 
She appeals directly to the present witness in every 
man's bosom. True, under peculiar circumstances, 
the testimony of the witness may be confused, and 
indistinct, and unavailable; but not more so than the 
witnesses at any other tribunal : nor in greater num- 
bers. Exceptions there are a few, where the internal 
consciousness is not satisfactory ; but in the immense 



28 MORAL SENSE — MOEAL AGENT. 

majority — the almost universality of cases, conscience 
is her own vindicator. The moral sense speaks out 
with a voice that must be heard. If insulted and 
abused, she may modestly retire from the tribunal; 
but only for a time. Soon she rallies and returns, 
and will command attention. 

Or as a Scottish writer has beautifully expressed 
the thought: "It is no induction of logic that has 
transfixed the heart of the victim of deep remorse, 
when he withers beneath an influence unseen by 
human eye, and shrinks from the anticipation of a 
reckoning to come. In both, the evidence is within — 
a part of the original constitution of every rational 
mind, planted there by Him who framed the wondrous 
fabric. This is the power of conscience; with an 
authority which no man can put away from him, it 
pleads at once for its own future existence, and for 
the moral attributes of an omnipotent and ever-pre- 
sent Deity. In a healthy state of the moral feelings, 
the man recognizes its claim to supreme dominion. 
Amid the degradation of guilt, it still raises its voice, 
and asserts its right to govern the whole man ; and 
though its warnings are disregarded and its claims 
disallowed, it proves within his inmost soul an accuser 
that cannot be stilled, and an avenging spirit that 
never is quenched." 

''If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our 
heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart 
condemn us not, then have we confidence toward 
God." 1 John iii. 20. Here the moral sense — con- 
science, is clothed with a species of judicial power. 
''My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go, 
my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live." 
Job xxvii. 6. Here the same principle or moral sense 
is set forth under the same name, heart — conscience. 
Nor is there perhaps a single instance in the Bible 
wherein the existence of a moral faculty is formally 
affirmed: it is every where assumed ; just as the being 
of a God is every where assumed. Nor are we to 
be distracted or disturbed, though men may throw 
metaphysical diflSculties in the way. What is this 



SELF-LOVE — MORAL GOVERNMENT. 29 

moral faculty? If it is not reason, nor volition, nor 
a mere bodily organ; what is it, and where does it 
reside ? We can just as easily retort — what is rea- 
son? — what is the will? what and w^here understand- 
ing ? Nay, but let us dismiss this folly and rest in 
the broad, undeniable fact, that men do have, and ex- 
ercise continually, ^faculty of perceiving and feeling 
that there is a right and a wrong, that they have a 
sense of guilt or liability to punishment for some 
actions; and a feeling of approbation and sense of 
desert of reward for others. Now it is this moral 
SENSE, connected as it is with reason and volition^ and 
some other items to be mentioned, that constitutes 
man a moral agent. This presents moral motives. 
How man should feel any power in motives to right 
action, or any repulsion or aversion from w^rong ac- 
tions, without it, is, I suppose, inconceivable. Take 
away this, and to speak of the reward of virtue is ab- 
surd ; for all distinction between virtue and vice must 
cease. '' The moral maniac pursues his way, and 
thinks himself a wise and a happy man ; but feels not 
that he is treading a downward course, and is lost as 
a moral being." 

SECTION VIII. 

SELF-LOVE, OR THE DESIRE OF HAPPINESS, IMPLIED IN MORAL 
GOVERNMENT. 

The sacred Scriptures have prescribed love to our- 
selves, as to manner and measure, as a rule in refer- 
ence to others. '' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
thyself." ' Love is the principle of communicative 
goodness — the principle of diffusive benevolence — that 
disposition and feeling in us which leads and prompts 
us to do good to the loved object. All living beings 
desire to be happy. This has been appropriately 
styled the first law of nature — a law indispensable to 
the continuance of life. ''No man ever yet hated his 
own flesh, but loveth it and cherisheth it." From the 
minutest insect to the mightiest angel, love of happi- 
ness is the law of life. Efforts towards self-preserva- 
tion are but the actings of this law. 
3>K 



30 REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS 

Self-love is an original and essential ingredient of 
our being ; in itself a holy and right feeling. Its cor- 
ruption and degeneracy end in selfishness, -which makes 
its own supposed enjoyment the supreme object of 
pursuit, irrespective of the claims of our fellow men 
or of our Creator. True self-love, on the contrary, is 
perfectly consistent with both. Indeed, it necessarily 
involves both: for our highest enjoyments lie in com- 
munion with men and God, which communion consists 
in the full and fair discharge of the relative duties we 
owe to each. As, therefore, self-love leads to self- 
preservation, and the utmost possible extension of our 
own happiness, so are we bound to exercise the gene- 
ral principles of love in promoting, to the utmost pos- 
sible degree, the happiness of all our brethren of the 
human race. The strength of obligation in the latter 
is inferred, in the rule, from the force of the principle 
in the former. How this becomes important in morals, 
will appear in the next section. 

SECTION IX. 

REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF- 
LOVE, AND ESSENTIAL TO THE IDEA OF MORAL GOVERNMENT. 

A reward is some good conferred as a consideration 
for right action. When a child has been obedient to 
his parent, something is given to the child or done for 
him, which affords him happiness; and this, as an ex- 
pression of the parent's approbation of his conduct. 
On the contrary, if the child's conduct has been wrong, 
the parent withholds the expression of sa1;isfaction ; 
he inflicts some privation or pain, as an expression of 
his disapprobation, ^hi^ i^ pimisliment; and whether 
it consists simply in the withholding of a benefit, or 
the positive infliction of pain, it is addressed to the 
principle of self-love: and when held up before the 
mind, previously to the perpetration of the deed, it 
constitutes what is called a motive to action. It is so 
called because of some suitableness or adaptation in 
it to move the person to act. ''By motive^'' says 
Edwards, ''I mean the whole of that which moves." 



NECESSAEY. 31 

Now the hope of happiness and the fear of pain have 
their common origin in self-love. Every thing, there- 
fore, which is done to alarm our fears and to excite our 
hopes, derives from this first law of nature its entire 
moving force. Take away from the human bosom the 
love of happiness, and hope and fear are terms without 
meaning. If pain and pleasure were matters of perfect 
indifference, how could the one or the other influence 
to action? But as the law exists in every man's con- 
sciousness — as we feel it impossible to throw off the 
fear of pain and to extinguish the lights of hope, we 
experience continually the repelling influence of the 
one, and the attracting force of the other. 

If we look narrowly into these things, we shall find, 
that the precise design of the Creator in furnishing 
us with such a constitution, is to make us capable of 
being influenced by motives, that we might be under 
moral government: and that the design of men in 
applying reward and punishment, is to connect most 
intimately in the mind, upright action with happiness 
on the one hand; and wrong action with pain on the 
other; and all with the same view of bringing motive 
to act upon self-love. Two remarks, of very con- 
siderable importance to a right understanding of the 
nature of moral government and of the great doctrine 
of justification, it may be as well here to present more 
distinctly to the reader's most serious consideration, 
viz : 

1. The precise object of reivard^ is right action. 
No parent feels that he ought to reward — that is, to 
bestow good — to confer benefits on his child, as a con- 
sideration for nothing — for no action at all. No gov- 
ernment holds out a premium for indolence, any more 
than for vicious conduct. The very idea of rewarding 
inaction is absurd. We have seen, that the possession 
of faculties adapted to useful action is an expression 
of the Creator's will that we oucrht to exercise them. 
The possession infers the obligation to use ; inactivity 
is a sin. The burying of the talent or the hiding of 
it in a napkin was a punishable offence — a sin in 
itself — a resistance of the Lord's will who gave it. 



32 REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS 

In other words, mere negative innocence is not meri- 
torious of positive reward. 

By innocencej I understand the primitive state of 
a moral being, prior to his active performance of duty 
or actual commission of sin. Adam was innocent the 
moment of his creation, but was not entitled to heaven. 
Positive and perpetual bliss is the reward of perfect 
righteousness. Innocence is entitled only to exemp- 
tion from painful endurance. " Adam was not to 
have the reward merely on account of his being inno- 
cent ; if so, he would have had it fixed upon him at 
once, as soon as ever he was created ; for he was as 
innocent then as he could be. But he was to have 
the reward on account of his activeness in obedience ; 
not on account merely of his not having done ill, but 
of his doing well." Edwards, v. 396. 

An objection will here perhaps occur to the reader's 
mind ; if innocence is not entitled to reward, can the 
moral being who has a corrupt nature, prior to his 
own active sinfidness^ be entitled to punishment ? 
The answer to this must depend upon a previous 
question, viz. How came he into this state of sinful- 
ness ? Was it by a direct and immediate exertion of 
creating power ? Then God is the author of this cor- 
ruption ; to affirm which is blasphemy. Was it a 
result of previous moral action with which the man 
was mediately connected? Then he in whom the 
corruption of disposition exists, is not innocent. His 
inclinations and desires after evil are consequences of 
sin; have their cause of existence in sin, and are 
therefore sinful like their cause; and of course, are 
deserving of punishment. 

^'Activeness in obedience" — righteousness, is that 
to which alone reward, good, blessing is promised. 
The doctrine of the good and great Edwards, of the 
Bible, and of common sense, ought to be somewhat 
farther illustrated: it is the fundamental principle of 
all morality and religion. Let us have distinct ideas 
here, or all w^ill be obscurity. Let us know w^hat 
righteousness is, and light will shine upon our path 
throughout. It is doing right — right action — action 



NECESSARY. 83 

according to the rule of right — conformity with law. 
When a moral being has done what the law under 
which he is placed requires him to do, he is righteous. 
''The formal nature of righteousness, (says Edwards 
V. 397,) lies in a conformity of actions to that which 
is the rule and measure of them. Therefore, that 
only is righteousness in the sight of a judge that 
answers the law. That perfect obedience is what is 
called righteousness in the New Testament, and that 
this righteousness or perfect obedience, is by God's 
fixed, unalterable rule the condition of justification, is, 
from the plain evidence of truth confessed by a certain 
great man whom no one will think to be blinded by 
prejudice, in favour of the doctrine we are mainta:ining." 
He then quotes Locke with approbation: ''For right- 
eousness or an exact obedience to the law, seems by 
the Scripture to have a claim of right to eternal life ; 
Rom. iv. 4: To him that worketh, i. e. does the 
works of the law, "is the reward not reckoned of 
grace, but of debt." "Such a perfect obedience in 
the NeAY Testament, is termed ^mcnoavifv)^ which is 
translated righteousness.'' " This," adds Edwards, 
"is that which St. Paul so often styles the law without 
any other distinction; — Rom. ii. 13: "Not the 
hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers 
of the law are justified." It is needless to quote any 
more passages, his epistles are full of it, especially 
this to the Romans." Ed. v. 398. 

The vast importance of this principle in moral 
government, whether under a divine or human ad- 
ministration, strongly invites ine to spend more time 
in its illustration and defence. And this the more, 
because this fundamental principle is almost wholly 
lost sight of in a large portion of all that has been 
written and come to my knowledge in the nineteenth 
century, on the subject of religion and morals. It is 
amazing how the very foundation on which all govern- 
ment rests, or rather the essence of the thing itself, 
can be kept out of sight, whilst a vast amount of com- 
motion exists all around it. 

On the other hand, the heavenly simplicity of the 



34 REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS NECESSARY. 

principle — its inexplicability because of its elementary 
simplicity, seems to foreclose description and frown 
upon all attempts at explanation. To save himself 
from the labour of reading page after page of at- 
tempted illustration, where the subject is, at the out- 
set, intuitively true — rather, where its truth is intui- 
tively perceived, will not the reader agree never to 
forget, that righteousness is conformity with law ; 
and the only propei" object of reioard — that there is, in 
the government of God, an eternal connexion between 
upright action and the happiness of the actor. 

Presuming then that the reader is perfectly satisfied 
with these terms, I offer the second remark, which is 
counterpart to the former, viz. That there exists an 
indispensable connexion between wrong-doing and 
suffering — that neglecting to act rightly and acting 
wrongly, are to be followed by punishment. 

Punishment is the pain, whether of privation or of 
positive visitation of wrath — the evil which is inflicted 
by the ruling power, as an expression of displeasure 
against sin. The infliction of such evil proceeds on 
the principle, that it is right to connect sin and suffer- 
ing. The assumption of its truth will not be accounted 
improper here. We surely need no laboured argument 
to satisfy us, that it is right to punish sin — to visit 
evils upon men proportionate to the magnitude of 
their offences. 

We have the evidence within ourselves: we feel, 
even when the evil comes upon ourselves, that it is 
right: we have the evidence of its correctness in the 
universal consent of men, as that is expressed in all 
the governments exercised by man : we have the evi- 
dence in the whole of God's visitations upon human 
folly and crime. '' Though hand join in hand the 
wicked shall not go unpunished." It, is therefore, 
utterly unnecessary to delay for the purpose of proof. 
Penal evil is essential to moral government ; prior to 
the act of sin, as motives operating by fear ; poste- 
rior to sin, as a vindication of the justice of the 
government, and of the holiness and truth of the 
governor. 



BRIEF SUMMARY. 35 



SECTION X. 

ABRIEFSUMMARY. 

No one can form an idea of moral government, of 
■which rewards and punishments do not constitute a 
leading part. The hope of happiness as an insepara- 
ble accompaniment of upright cond.uct, and the fear 
of punishment as a result of unrighteousness, are ad- 
dressed to the principle of self-love. Thus, motive is 
brought to bear upon choice. The desires of the mind 
have for their direct object apprehended good: these 
desires operate an influence upon the will, and the 
object of the mind's contemplation, when about to 
make a choice, is its own acts. Two or more objects 
are presented under circumstances inviting to choice ; 
which of the two shall the mind choose ? In all its 
actings or movements toward answering this question, 
the qualities of the things presented are the subjects 
which the mind is examining. In the choice itself, 
the precise object is the action to be performed. I 
am offered an apple and an orange, wdth the privilege 
of taking one : I perceive them and know their quali- 
ties : therein I exercise intelligence. I compare their 
qualities together, with my own taste and relish for 
them respectively: herein I reason — in weighing 
motives. I feel that I ought to take the one which 
wdll afford me the most happiness on the whole : this 
is m.y rule of judgment — my law. The qualities of the 
fruits are the objects of my mental action. These 
operations over, the act of choice, or the volition fol- 
lows. This act of choosing^ or willing moves me to 
take and eat. These last acts are the direct objects 
of the act of w^ill or of volition ; and the act of volition 
was produced by the previous acts of reasoning in 
weighing the motives ; and these motives have refer- 
ence to the laws of self-love ; as the greatest apparent 
good, so was my choice and consequent action. It is 
perfectly obvious then, that the state of the body, its 
taste, its habits previously, its present appetite, wdie- 



36 BRIEF SUMMARY. 

tlier sated with this fruit or hungry for it, have an 
overpowering influence in the choice. 

Now let the objects between which the mind is 
called upon to make a choice, be the happiness con- 
nected with a moral act on the one hand, and the 
misery connected with an immoral act on the other. 
The law prescribing duty is the rule of judgment : 
and the moral se7ise decrees that I ought to obey the 
law, whilst various temptations operate on the other 
side. Here the process is similar. The intellectual 
powers are exercised in perceiving the rule and its 
transgression and the consequences, viz: the reward 
and the punishment. The reasoning faculty is exer- 
ted in comparing together the things perceived. The 
principle of self-love is active in drawing toward that, 
which, according to the present aspect, will make me 
happy; which may be in opposition to conscience or 
the moral sense. Volition is the mind's last act pre- 
ceding the performance of the deed; reward or pun- 
ishment follows the act. This is moral action, and 
he who enacted the law, who regulates motives and 
sees to the business of judging and administering the 
reward or the punishment, as the case may be, is the 
Moral Governor. 

God reveals his will, "Thou shalt not MIL'' He 
states the consequences of acting contrary to it: 
^^ Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his 
blood be shed." The consequence of obedience is 
inferred: if a man love his neighbour, he shall be 
happy. The mind looks at the sin of murder, in 
connexion with its threatened punishment; it looks 
at the duty of loving and doing good to man, in 
connexion with its reward. A feeling of desire for 
the reward, and a feeling of aversion from the pains 
of punishment, exist in the mind. These feelings, 
which are simply the action of the principle of self- 
love, immediately tend to move the will; reason, 
meanwhile, is employed in comparing the different 
acts and their consequences; the mind wills the per- 
petration of the deed; and God visits with deserved 



PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 37 

pmiisliment; or, it resists tlie temptation, wills a 
kindly act, and experiences the happy consequences. 

Intelligence, then, and reason, and desire, and 
self-love, and volition, and a moral sense, and a law 
or rule of action, and reward and punishment to be 
administered by God whose law extends over man, 
are all included in the idea of moral government. 
They all exist in the case of man, and constitute him 
a moral agent. 

1. Let me appeal to present witnesses for the truth 
of my doctrine. Is there not in the reader's bosom 
a moral sense, an innate, involuntary, self-constituted 
tribunal and judge of the morality or immorality of 
actions ? 

2. This judge is incorruptible; you may suppose 
him blind, but you are mistaken. 

3. This judge is immortal as the soul. 

4. I appeal to you to prove the principle of self- 
love : you desire to be happy; you dread misery. 

5. I appeal to the immortal witness and judge 
within you, that you know and believe happiness to 
be inseparable from holiness, and misery from sin. 

6. Will you peril your eternal interests by con- 
tinuance in sin ? 



CHAPTER 11. 



ON THE PARTICULAR MODIFICATION OF MORAL GOV- 
ERNMENT, AS IT WAS EXTENDED OYER MAN IN 
HIS PRIMITIVE CONDITION; OR, THE COVENANT OP 
WORKS. 

SECTION L 

THE PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN ANTERIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE 
COVENANT, CONSIDERED INTELLECTUALLY, MORALLY AND LEGALLY. 

It is not intended by the title of this section, to inti- 
mate, that man existed any considerable time before 
God entered into covenant with him. The object is 
4 



38 PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 

simply to present a view of his qualities, character, 
and condition, in the particular respects referred to, 
apart from the peculiar moral constitution under 
•which he was placed. This seems necessary in order 
to a right understanding of that constitution. 

1. Considered intellectually: he was endowed with 
a knowledge of things around him : he was not thrown 
into being, and into the midst of a countless number 
of fellow creatures, utterly ignorant of himself and of 
them : of his own capacities and powers, and of theirs ; 
as the schemes of theorising philosophers would seem 
to have it. In their speculations, men have been fond 
of accounting for the formation of language, spoken 
and written; for the manner in which man acquired 
a knowledge of his own soul, and of the Creator's 
being and perfections ; for the relations that exist be- 
tween man and his Maker, and also between him and 
the creatures around him. 

All such speculations are based on the false and 
misguided assumption, that man was formed capable 
of acquiring knowledge, but was not created ^'in 
knowledge." 

The Bible presents a more rational account, and 
one which casts no such reproach upon the wisdom 
and goodness of the Creator. It assures us that 
^'God created man after his own image," and that 
this consisted partly in knowledge^ — ''Renewed in 
knowledge after the image of Him that created him;" 
which shows conclusively that the image after which 
man was created, consisted partly in knowledge; 
and the manner in which God represents himself, as 
conversing with man, immediately after his creation, 
implies his possession of the faculty of speech, and of 
the art of reasoning, and of a language which formed 
the vehicle of thought. ''The Lord God commanded 
the man." Will it here be pretended that this does 
not necessarily imply a spoken language; that it may 
only have been an impression produced upon the mind 
without speech ? But of this there is no evidence, and 
we have indubitable evidence, a little after, that the 
man did speak of the woman, and to the woman, and 



PRIMEVAL STATE OF' MAN. 39 

to God; and there is the same certainty that the 
woman spake to the serpent and to her husband. 
Equally baseless is the hypothesis, that man was left 
to gather his knowledge of the creatures around him 
from experience alone — that he was not indued with 
knowledge by the Creator. God told him much con- 
cerning them. He prescribed to Adam the limit of 
his authority over them, and the uses to which they 
might be applied. 

Equally without foundation is the assumption, that 
man was left to decipher the Creator's being, attri- 
butes, and requirements from the creation around him. 
On the contrary, God gave him a law, and in this, 
communicated to him a knowledge of his own will: 
as in the command to be fruitful, to use the creatures, 
under certain restrictions, to dress and keep the gar- 
den. And after the creation of the woman, a know- 
ledge of her relation to himself was given to him, and 
of the obligations it involved.* Indeed, the idea of 
Adam's utter ignorance, his being left to grope his 
way to knowledge, is so gross an absurdity that I am 
aware the reader will not tolerate much delay in the 
disproof. He feels that it is a mere waste of time. 
But then, let him please to remember that on this 
very assumption, gross as it is, the enemies of revela- 
tion, and some of its misguided friends, have built 
their respective systems, the one to corrupt, the other 
to destroy all confidence in the Bible. If you con- 
cede, that man originally had no revelation from his 
Creator, but was left to discover the divine being and 
perfections, by reason, you exalt reason at the ex- 
pense of truth, and give her a power which she never 
possessed. Hence the infidel gains his most plausible 
advantages against revelation. But, on the contrary, 
if you hold to the facts, as inferable by reason^ and as 
taught in the Bible, you have the necessity of revela- 
tion established, prior to the fall of man. He never 
existed without revelation. God revealed himself to 
man — made known his own being and perfections, to 
a certain extent — man's own qualities, relations, and 
duties, at his creation, and before the fall. 



40 PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 

If again, you concede this degree of ignorance — if 
you grant that Adam knew nothing at all, then the 
corrupter of Bible doctrine infers that there could be 
no covenant of works, no representative relation of 
Adam to his posterity, no moral headship; and by 
good and necessary consequence, there can be no 
covenant of grace, no headship of a second Adam, no 
imputation of his righteousness. Thus by this one 
rash admission, you put it beyond your power to de- 
fend the citadel of truth ; you virtually abandon the 
Bible to its foes, and sport away the hopes of a ruined 
world. 

But, whilst the truth is to be maintained, that man 
had communicated to him, directly from God, much 
valuable information before his fall, and the necessity 
of a revelation even then, and hence its superior ne- 
cessity now; it is not to be affirmed that Adam pos- 
sessed the knowledge of all nature, and of all art, and 
of all divine perfections. This absurdity, for sinister 
purposes, is attempted to be forced upon us, that by 
representing the doctrine of primeval revelation in a 
ludicrous point of view, the true doctrine may be 
brought into contempt. We have not said that God 
revealed all things to Adam : but we do say, that he 
communicated to him much knowledge, and furnished 
him with reasoning faculties, by the right use of which 
he might indefinitely extend the range of his intellect, 
and the sphere of his knowledge. 

2. We have seen that a moral sense is essentially 
necessary to a moral being. Man possessed this. He 
had a heart, as well as a head, to know good and evil, 
to judge of right and wrong. To this his Creator ad- 
dressed himself, when he prescribed duty, and pro- 
hibited sin. But it is more important to remark, that 
these moral powers were in an attitude for right 
action : in other words, man was created in a state of 
moral rectitude. 

This may be viewed in a two-fold aspect. He was, 
on the one hand, free from every corrupt principle, 
feeling, inclination, or disposition. This is what the 
old divines would call negative holiness. He was also 



PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 41 

positively inclined to right action — having the will 
and aflfections turned towards holy things. Both are 
included in the language of Solomon, ''God hath 
made man upright." This moral rectitude may be 
most satisfactorily proved, by reference to the doc- 
trine of sanctification, which is spoken of, as a chang- 
ing of his people, ''from glory to glory," into the 
same image. The image of God, after which man 
was created, consisted in holiness, or moral rectitude ; 
"be ye holy, for I am holy;" "as we have borne the 
image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of 
the heavenly;" "sanctify them through thy truth." 

3. But the legal primitive condition of man, is 
chiefly important to a right understanding ' of the 
covenant of works. He was under a law, bound to 
act agreeably to the will of God, so far as made 
known to him. To no truth does the human mind 
assent more readily, than to the affirmation, that the 
rational creature is bound to obey the Creator. The 
human mind can have no distinct conception of a 
rational, immortal creature, under no obligation of 
obedience to hiin, who sustains its existence; at least, 
I think it impossible to believe in the reality of such 
a state. If there is no necessary obligation, there 
can be no dependence, and we have the anomaly of 
an independent creature! On the contrary, if the 
idea of an independent creature be entirely unrea- 
sonable, then we must admit the existence of moral 
obligation lying upon man, by a necessity of his con- 
dition. Anterior to all covenant transaction and rela- 
tion, man was bound to perfect obedience to the divine 
will: in other words, he was under a moral govern- 
ment. For, as Witsius observes, "Adam sustained a 
two-fold relation. 1. As man. 2. As the head and 
representative of manhiiid. In the former relation, he 
was a rational creature, under the law^ to God, up- 
right, created after the image of God, and furnished 
with sufficient power to fulfil all righteousness." B. 1, 
ch. 2, sec. 3. Adam stood alone, and was individually 
accountable to God. Should he act contrary to the 
divine will made known to him, he must abide the just 
4^ 



42 PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 

consequences of his action — he must meet the punish- 
ment which God might think suitable to his govern- 
ment to inflict. Should he obey, he must be rewarded 
accordingly. But in the results of his actions, himself 
alone w^ould be necessarily, or indeed justly, involved. 
Such is supposed to be, and to have been, the condi- 
tion of the angels. It is not known to us, that they 
have ever been on probation in any other respect than 
as individuals; each standing or falling for himself; 
each receiving the reward or punishment, allotted by 
the Creator to his obedience or sin, as the case might 
be. Had man been left to multiply and replenish the 
earth, whilst in this his strictly primitive estate, it 
may be conceived that some would hafe fallen, whilst 
others would have remained steadfast in their obe- 
dience, as it has actually proved with the angels. The 
fall of one might have affected the condition and stand- 
ing of another, by way of example, and through the 
force of natural connexions; still, those maintaining 
their integrity would have been retained in their state 
of blessedness. But I cannot see how, and on what 
principle they could be confirmed at any given period 
in that state, so as to be henceforth incapable of fall- 
ing into sin. In other words, I cannot see how there 
could arise any claim on the part of man, to any thing 
but present enjoyment, except from a special act of 
condescension and love on the part of God. Some 
gratuitous pledge or promise of God,, must be neces- 
sary to produce and justify in man's mind, the faith 
of an endless life and blessedness. Until such a pledge 
or promise should be given, he could not conceivably 
have a claim of right in perpetuity of bliss. His con- 
tinuance for a long time in a state of obedience, could 
create no obligation upon the Creator prospectively, 
so that God should be bound to secure him for ever. 
But if at any period, no matter how far removed from 
his origin, he sinned, he must die. Or, as Dr. Bates 
in his Harmony of the Divine Attributes expresses 
the thought, '' Thus holy and blessed was Adam in 
his primitive state, and that he might continue so, he 
was obliged for ever to obey the will of God, who 



OF A COVENANT IN GENERAL. 43 

"bestowed upon him life and happiness. By the first 
neglect of this duty, he would most justly and inevita- 
bly incur the loss of both." Vol. I. p. 189. Again, 
^' and from hence it follows that man only was in a 
state of moral dependence, and capable of a laAV." 
'^ And as it is impossible that man should be exempt 
from a law." p. 190. Such was the strictly primitive 
condition of man — a state of moral dependence, a 
state of trial or probation, individually only, not 
socially — a state, as far we know, not necessarily 
limited, but capable of, perhaps, interminable dura- 
tion, in every stage of whose progress there was a 
possibility of falling and being lost — a state whose 
change for the better, must be a matter of pure be- 
nevolent gratuitousness on the part of the supreme 
governor. 

SECTION IT. 

OF A COVENANT IN GENERAL. 

One of the simplest ideas in the whole science of 
morals, is the general notion of a covenant^ compact 
or mutual agreement. It includes three leading items, 
viz : the parties^ the terms^ and the voluntary assent 
or agreement, Blackstone, the great commentator 
upon English law, speaking of the parts of a deed, 
says, '^ after warrants, usually follow covenants^ or 
conventions, which are clauses of agreement contained 
in a deed, whereby either party may stipulate for the 
truth of certain facts, or may bind himself to perform, 
or give something to the other." Vol. II. 20-7. 
Here are mentioned the parties^ the terms^ the agree- 
ment. These exist in the nature of the thing, and 
therefore all writers who treat on the subject must 
and do, either formally or inadvertently, admit and 
recognize them. The great charter of England, in 
which she glories as the palladium of her liberties, is 
simply a covenant between the two belligerent parties ; 
the king heading the interests of arbitrary power on 
the one hand; and the nation, the people, claiming 
their rights on the other; the subject matter of the 



44 OF A COVENANT IN GENERAL. 

charter is tlie terms of the covenant : and its ratifica- 
tion is the expression of their agreement. So treaties 
between independent nations are covenants^ and, like 
other covenants, they may, and often do, exist be- 
tween three or more parties. So, the constitution of 
our general government, is a covenant between the 
States respectively, who are the parties to it. 

Here it may be proper to state a few things in 
regard to the parts severally. As to the parties. 

1. They must be moral agents — intelligent beings, 
endowed with a moral sense by which to understand 
the nature, and feel the force of moral obligation. 

2. They must have a right of control over all that 
which forms the terms of the covenant. A man can- 
not rightly covenant to do what he has no right to do. 

3. The parties must have the exercise of volition. 
There can be no agreement where there is compulsion 
of the nature of coercion or force. And yet, perfect 
freedom from all kind of coercion is not requisite in a 
covenanting party. 4. In other words, the absence 
of all coercion by moral force is not necessary ; the 
force of motives operating upon choice, is not indis- 
pensable. A nation may be vanquished, and com- 
pelled to make a disadvantageous treaty, and yet, if 
that treaty do not involve the abandonment of moral 
principle, they may not violate it. 5. Hence, perfect 
equality is not necessary in the parties to a covenant. 
They may differ in intellectual, in moral, and in phy- 
sical powder, and yet covenant with each other, and in 
fact, this is always the case : there is never a perfect 
equality. The commonwealth may determine to take 
my land for a public use ; and yet I, as one party, may 
enter into a covenant with the commonwealth as the 
other, and yet this inequality of our condition does 
not nullify the agreement; I have a choice still: I 
may agree upon terms, or abide the issue of a contest. 
If I sign an agreement it is binding. ''He sweareth 
to his hurt and changeth not." Psalm xv. 4. 

As to the terms. 1. There is a stipulation of some- 
thing to be done or given by the party proposing the 
covenant. 2. A re-stipulation by the other party, 



OF A COVENANT IN GENERAL. 45 

of something to be done or given in consideration. 
3. These two things are in theory^ if not mfact^ equi- 
valent. 4. These equivalents must be in themselves 
lawful and right; for it never can be right to engage 
to do wrong. 5. There is a penalty included in the 
terms of a covenant; that is, some evil consequence 
to result to the party who may, and shall violate his 
engagement. This very often includes more than a 
mere negative, more than the simple forfeiture or loss 
of all the advantages proposed to be secured. It 
extends to the positive visitation of evil upon the 
covenant breaker. It is usual to place this as an 
appendage, but it certainly belongs to the terms, for 
the parties agree to the forfeiture conditionally. The 
'penalty is added as a security, and the philosophy of 
the thing will appear, if you reflect, that the object of 
every lawful and binding covenant is to secure some 
good. Here the principle of hope is addressed, and 
the penalty is addressed to fear; and thus self-love is 
enlisted, by the strongest motives, to fortify virtue, 
and to sustain truth. 

As to the agreement^ or voluntary assent to the 
terms; it implies, 1. a knowledge of them: 2. a dis- 
tinct comparison in the mind, of the equivalents con- 
tained in the tenns — the probable advantages and the 
possible disadvantages : in short, all those processes 
of thought which present motives to the mind and 
operate upon choice. 3. It implies volition, the mind 
assenting to the proposition; and, 4. the expression of 
that assent in the confirmation of the covenant. Such 
is the general substance — such the simple ideas inclu- 
ded in the common conception of a covenant. Now 
it will be observed, that these are among the original 
elements of that morality which constitutes the basis 
of all human society. Without these principles, where 
were government ? And especially, w^here could you 
find free government — government founded on com- 
promise — government where powers are balanced, 
and rights hedged around by the eternal ramparts of 
impregnable triitJi ? Whose imagination can conceive 
of social organization without the essential elements 



46 OF god's covenant with ADAM. 

of a covenant? Society necessarily implies a plu- 
rality of persons : and, " can two walk together except 
they be agreed?" No, not even the tenderest and 
most endearing of all human societies — the loved 
relation which forms the basis of all others — can come 
into being, and exist without it: and the measure of 
perfection, and of bliss, in all other human associations, 
is determined by the reverence, sanctity, sacredness, 
and inviolability of the marriage covenant. 

Without these principles, how can government be 
organized ? How can you speak of, or think about it ? 
Without these principles, how will you conduct busi- 
ness ? How will you manage the commerce of society ? 
But I forbear. All men every where, see and feel 
and know, that the doctrines involved in a simple 
covenant, are the intrinsic, innate, essential, and 
indestructible principles of social man. They are not 
separable from his nature, they are his nature itself, 
he would not be man without them. 

SECTION III. 

OF god's covenant with ADAM. 

We are next to inquire, whether God entered into 
covenant with man, and what were its terms and 
effects. 

1. The terms nn:: and ^taS^>t>?, translated in the 
Old and New Testaments respectively, by the English 
word covenant^ have not the same original meaning. 
The Hebrew word signifies, to eut^ and obviously is 
founded on, or perhaps more correctly, is applied 
because of, the ancient form of confirming a covenant, 
which was by cutting and killing an animal and 
dividing it into parts, between which the covenanting 
parties passed. Thus Abraham divided the carcasses, 
when God established his covenant with him, (Gen. 
chap. 15.) To which ceremony, there is also distinct 
reference in Jer. xxxiv. 18-19. ''I will give the men 
that have transgressed my covenant, which have not 
performed the words of the covenant, which they had 
made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and 



OF god's covenant with ADAM. 47 

passed between the parts thereof, into the hands of 
their enemies." This custom existed among the Ro- 
mans in a later age, as is exemplified in the case of the 
federal compact between themselves and the Albani in 
reference to the conflict of the Horatii and the Curatii, 
on the issue of which, the fate of the two nations was 
to depend. In confirming this covenant, after the terms 
were repeated, the officer strikes a hog with a flint 
stone, pronouncing the words of the imprecation, 
praying Jupiter, in case the Roman people should first 
violate the covenant, he would so strike them, and 
with so much more power as he is stronger than man. 
Livy, B. i. 24. Hence the phrase extant among us 
at this day; to strike a hargain^ is, to close a contract. 

The term, ^*aS>jK»j, in the New Testament, comes 
nearer the ordinary meaning of the thing ; it is a dis- 
position^ an arrayigement of things — an agreement. 

Both terms are used often in a more general sense, 
in reference to any appointment, ordinance, decree or 
statute; ''so that both the words imply little more 
than a divine establishment or ordinance, in which 
God gives his people ground to expect promised bless- 
ings, in such a way as redounds most to his own glory; 
and at the same time, they, who are expectants 
thereof, are not exempted from an obligation to per- 
form those duties, which this grace obliges them to, 
and which will be an evidence of their right to them." 
Ridgley, II. 168. 

2. But after all, words are arbitrary signs of things, 
and we are never safe in trusting to a single term, as 
though from it alone^ we could attain to the right 
knowledge of the thing. Our inquiry must be now 
into the thing itself. What are the matters of fact to 
which these terms are applied ? Is there any moral 
transaction between God and man, wherein the prin- 
ciples above recited, are involved? Is there any pro- 
position made, by God to man, of something to be 
done by the latter — any re-stipulation of something to 
be done by the former — any agreement of both — any 
penal sanction? To all such interrogations every 
superficial reader of the Bible — much m_ore every 



48 OF gob's covenant with ADAM. 

accurate observer of its contents, must answer affir- 
matively. Let us look then into the detail. 

1. As to the competency of the parties — God and 
Adam ; both are intelligent moral beings, qualified to 
enter into any arrangement whose tendencies are to 
the glory of the one, and the happiness of the other ; 
both in the exercise of volition, and neither coerced 
beyond the power of mere motives to choice. 

God leaves Adam to choose his course; he does 
exercise volition, and that, under no constraining 
perils calculated to interfere with his choice. This is 
perfectly plain and indisputable. For the objection, 
that Adam could not refuse — he dared not object to 
the terms; rests on a flimsy foundation: because it 
rests on a positive untruth, standing Out in bold 
opposition to the plain anxl undeniable fact. Adam 
did exercise his volition — he did dare to choose in 
opposition to God's will, and that, after he had at first 
acquiesced in it. The fact of his acquiescence will 
appear hereafter ; but the fact of his choosing to act 
contrary to God's expressed will, 'Hhou shalt not eat 
of it," is acknowledged by himself, and all his pos- 
terity do the same. Yet it is true, in one sense, that 
he could not object: he could not without sin: still 
he did so : hence it is undeniable, that he did choose. 

2. As to the terms : thej^ are briefly related in, or 
inferable from the language of the Bible. ''And the 
Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of 
the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of 
the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of 
it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt 
surely die." Let us now examine whether this lan- 
guage contains the five items of a covenant. 1. We 
have a stipulation of something required of Adam — 
abstinence from the fruit of the tree, in obedience to 
divine will. The command is a positive law, and a 
test of Adam's obedience as eff'ectual, and even more 
simple, than if it related to some general duty: for 
his way was hedged up, so that he could sin only in 
this one thing. All the principles and tendencies of 
his nature, were accordant to the moral law of his 



OF god's covenant with ADAM. 49 

creation. This then was the only avenue he had to 
guard; and in narrowing down the field of temptation, 
God gave him the vantage ground over his enemy. 
2. We see proffered to Adam, life, as the reward, or 
consideration of his obedience ; for, according to the 
simplest laws of construction, the threatening of death 
as a consequence of eating, involves the promise of 
life to obedience. So Adam understood it; so Eve 
understood it, ^'ye shall not eat of it, lest ye die." 
This is alleged as a reason for not eating. Life was 
desirable, and was to be granted so long as they 
should abstain. In the laws of the commonwealth, 
which award death to the murderer, the principle is 
assumed, that the enjoyment of life belongs "to him 
who exercises the opposite feelings and the conduct to 
which they prompt. So in this instance, the eating, 
or disobedience, is connected with death, and the not 
eating, or obedience, is connected with life. 8. Here 
is the theoretic equivalent. The honour done to God 
and his moral government. He is pleased in conde- 
scension and kindness and love, to account as an 
equivalent" to the felicity of man to the whole extent 
of that included in the term life. 4. These equiva- 
lents are in themselves right. Unfaltering com- 
pliance with the will of God in all things, even the 
most minute and apparently trifling, is infinitely 
proper in itself, and infinitely important to the moral 
universe. The proffer of eternal felicity as a reward 
for so poor a service as was required of man, was cer- 
tainly not wrong, but altogether in keeping with the 
boundless benevolence of the everlasting Father. 
5. The penal sanction is explicitly set forth in the 
language, and as to the reality there can be no doubt. 
Some questions we have to settle as to the extent of 
the blessing and the curse : but the things themselves 
are indisputable. 

3. The voluntary assent of the parties is a portion 

of the terms; and as in every covenant, one party 

must make the proposition ; God proposes the terms, 

as an expression of his willj which is an assent or 

5 



50 OF god's covenant with abam. 

agreement. God's commanding man not to eat. Is 
his consent. 

As to man, it has been abeady observed, he could 
not without unreasonable opposition to his Creator's 
"will, refuse any terms which the wisdom and benevo- 
lence of God would allow him to proffer. Hence we 
should conclude, Adam must most cheerfully accede 
to the terms. But this he would do the more readily, 
when their nature is inspected — when he should see 
in them every thing adapted for his advantage, and 
nothing to his disadvantage. 

The same conclusion we deduce from an inspection 
of the scripture history. For there is not a hint at 
any thing like a refusal on the part of Adam, before 
the act of violation. The w^hole history is perfectly 
consistent with the supposition, that he did cheerfully 
agree. It is evident, that Eve thought the command 
most reasonable and proper ; she so expressed herself 
to the serpent, giving God's command as a reason of 
her abstinence. This information she must have 
derived from her husband, for she was not created at 
the time the covenant was given to Adam ; hence we 
infer Adam's consent. Adam was, after his sin, 
abundantly disposed to excuse himself; he cast the 
blame upon the woman, and indirectly upon God, for 
giving her to him. "The woman whom thou gavest 
to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." 
Now most assuredly, if Adam could in truth have 
plead, that he never consented to abstain — that he 
never agreed to the terms proposed — that he had 
broken no pledge — he would have presented this 
apology, or justification. But he was dumb : he 
offered no such apology. Can any reasonable man 
want further evidence of his consent ? Even this may 
be had; if he will look at the consequences. The 
penal evils did result ; sorrow and death did ensue ; 
and hence, because God is righteous, we infer the legal 
relations. The judge of all the earth would not punish, 
where there is no crime. 



61 



CHAPTER III. 

ON THE EXTENT OF THE COVENANT: OR, THE REPKE- 
SENTATIVE CHARACTER OF ADAM. 

It has already been remarked, that the first man 
stood in a "two-fold relation, 1. As man. 2. As the 
head and representative of mankind." We have 
viewed the covenant in reference to the former only. 
Our attention must now be turned to the latter. 



SECTION I. 

THE GENERAL DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATION. 

To represent, is to act in the legal character of 
another — to sustain his relations in law — to act for 
him. The term is commonly used, in civil, as well 
as in religious things, to express in brief, the whole 
doctrine of principal and agent. And I prefer it to 
any other term, though it be not found in our Eng- 
lish Bible ; because there is no other term in the lan- 
guage, which, to a republican ear, sounds more har- 
moniously, or conveys the idea more clearly. All 
Americans are so familiar with it, and with the doc- 
trine which it is used to express, that to their under- 
standing it speaks a volume. Every American knows, 
that a representative is one who acts for others, in the 
making and execution of laws, or the transaction of 
business; and that, by consequence, those who are 
represented, are bound by the acts of their represen- 
tatives, just as though they had been performed by 
themselves immediately. It has always, therefore, 
appeared to me futile in the extreme, to object to the 
word merely because it is not a Bible term. Hun- 
dreds of words are in constant use, by the very per- 
sons who raise such objections, which are not found 
in our English Bibles. Moreover, the inconsistency 
of such objectors is the more glaring, from the fact, 
that they wish to discard the use of the Bible term 



52 THE GENERAL DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATION. 

covenantyje?i, and the thing too, and to introduce a 
new nomenclature, such as ''providential develop- 
ment" — "God's moral constitution" — "social organi- 
zation," &c. 

But let us ever maintain the doctrine. It can be 
expressed by a variety of terms. It is a fact, the 
evidence of which, is as long and as broad as civilized 
society, that one man performs moral acts, binding in 
right, and in law, by the agency of another. It 
is not the pen, nor the hand that holds it, which 
makes the contract contained in the deed; but it is 
the rational mind which acts by, and through them, 
as instruments. And it is a fact, that the same ra- 
tional mind does make use of another pen and another 
hand, to confirm and ratify a similar contract. Here 
there is no room for discussion, to elicit proof of the 
fact, or to throw light on the doctrine of representa- 
tion. The only question that seems admissible, is the 
philosophical inquiry, how can this be? How can A 
transfer, as it were, his moral person into B ; so that 
B's moral transaction with C, is not his own, and does 
not bind him, but is A's, and binds him only? 

Now if any man insist on a reply to this inquiry, 
and desire to make the inexplicability of the fact, an 
objection to the doctrine, I answer, that he is no philoso- 
pher : for it is no part of sound philosophy, to make 
the inexplicability of a fact, an objection to the doc- 
trine which contains it. It is no part of philosophy 
to accommodate facts to a theory; but, on the con- 
trary, the glory of the modern philosophy consists in 
admitting facts, however inexplicable, upon good and 
sufficient proof, and building the theory and the doc- 
trine upon them. Who does not know that, as yet, 
the facts of gravitation, and of magnetic attraction 
are unexplained? And yet, does any philosopher 
deny them ? So also, who knows not the fact, that 
one man often acts by and through another? What 
then if we cannot explain the mode? It is undeniable, 
that I can transact business, that shall be binding in 
law and conscience, in a hundred diiferent places at 
the same time; a hundred miles distant from each 



DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATION, 53 

other, and not be present personally in either of 
them. Is it asked, ''How can these things be?" 
We testify things we do know, and the objector is just 
as much bound to explain the facts as we are. 

The truth is, the doctrine of a moral unity between 
two or more persons, is an original element in the 
science of morals. An identity exists between the 
agent and his principal — they are one in law, to the 
whole extent of the agency ; that is, to the whole ex- 
tent of the representative authority. Now it is clearly 
manifest, that the actual existence of this moral unity 
is one thing; and the manner in which it is consti- 
tuted is another thing. These two may obviously be 
viewed apart from one another. The former may be 
a subject of inquiry, and may be settled, and its set- 
tlement constitute the basis of the most important 
transaction; whilst the latter may be left entirely 
untouched. A foreigner, resident in our country, 
finds a body of men met. together in a certain build- 
ing — they pass laws, some of them affecting his dearest 
interests, and extending over him the fostering wing 
of their protection. It is important for him to know 
w^hether these men are really authorized to pass such 
laws. Are they the representatives of this nation? 
May he safely make purchases under their acts? 
Now, here is a mere question of fact, and it is plain, 
that he may obtain perfect satisfaction on this point, 
without at all going into the other questions, as to 
how these men became representatives — what is the 
manner of election in each State — were the elections 
all fair and just ? But we must defer this for the 
present, and proceed to consider the following posi- 
tion. 

SECTION II. 

THIS DOCTRINE OF REPRESENTATION TAUGHT IN THE LAWS OF NATURE, 
AND, ESSENTIAL TO MAN's SOCIAL EXISTENCE. 

Let history unroll her cumbrous volumes, until the 
ample scroll shall extend over all time, and girdle the 
globe, and I challenge the line, which tells of a 
5* 



54 DOCTRINE OF REPEESENTATION. 

nation, where the principle in question has not been 
recognized: yea, where it does not form a prominent 
feature of national character. Take even savage 
men, and is not the wild leader of the roving clan, as 
he ranges mountain, hill, and dale, at once the lord 
and the representative of the train that follows him ? 
Is not the tawny sachem the moral head of his tribe? 
Do they not look to him, to act for them ? To make 
peace or proclaim war? And in what does civiliza- 
tion consist? What constitutes the secret of its 
meliorating influence? Does it reveal the principle 
of representation, or does it only correct th§ manner 
of constituting the relation of representor and 
represented? Look at the condition of civilized, 
in connexion with barbarous nations ; and where do 
you find the point of contrast in their social system? 
Not in the absence of representation from the one, 
and its presence in the other; but in the manner in 
which their leaders came to possess representative 
power. Just as nations approximate perfection in 
civilization and morality, and consequently, freedom, 
do they look well to the manner in which men come 
in fact to represent them. But the fact itself is indis- 
pensable to social men. There must be government, 
and therefore one or a few must represent, must act 
in many things, for the whole. Now, from this 
inevitable necessity we infer that such is the moral 
law of man's creation. God so created him that he 
cannot exist in society, for which he is obviously 
adapted, without the exercise of the principle of 
representation. Take away this, and where are govern- 
ments, constitutions, laws, officers, social systems ? 

Hence, we should conclude, without ever having 
looked into it, that the Bible — supposing it to be a 
book intended for human good — must embrace and 
teach the doctrine of representation. To affirm this 
is the object of the next section. 



ADAM THE MORAL HEAD. 55 



SECTION III. 

ADAM ACTED IN THE COVENANT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL HUMAN 
persons: HE WAS THE MORAL HEAD OF THE RACE. 

For the proper illustration of this position, a num- 
ber of distinct remarks are necessary. 

1. Persons only are capable of being legally and 
morally represented. This will appear from a 
moment's reflection upon the nature of the thing. 
A representative is one who stands in the legal 
relations of another, and acts for him; so that the 
act of the one becomes binding in law and morality 
upon the other. Now who can conceive of a- moral 
obligation lying upon any but a moral being? I am 
aware, however, that by a fiction of the law or a 
figure of rhetoric, we speak of representing property: 
and so we speak of property being bound. But no 
person supposes that a moral obligation can lie upon 
an inanimate substance, or that it is capable of acting 
through a vicarious substitute. All men know, that 
w^hen we speak of representing property, we simply 
mean, the giving to those who hold it, an influence 
in appointing the representative, greater than their 
due proportion, if numerically considered: and when 
property is said to be bound, it is simply meant, that 
the right to it has passed over, under certain condi- 
ti£)ns, to a person difi*erent from the formal or reputed 
owner. 

Neither can a nature be represented. Nature is 
the aggregate of properties, belonging to any person, 
or thing. When the apostle speaks of men being 
''partakers of the divine nature," he merely teaches 
the doctrine of sanctification ; that they are accom- 
modated to the moral likeness of God; made in a 
measure holy, have in a higher degree than before, 
some of the properties whose aggregate, in perfection, 
constitute our idea of God. 

The idea we attach to the term nature^ is a mere 
abstraction; it exists only in thought: there is no 
such thing as human nature apart from personal 



66 ADAM THE MORAL HEAD. 

existence. It is not therefore human nature^ that 
Adam represented in the covenant of works, but the 
human persons who possess it. 

2. The extent of every federal representation de- 
pends solely upon the covenant which creates it: that 
is to say, the number of persons which the representa- 
tive acts for^ and the identical persons themselves, 
must be determined by the covenant agreement by 
which he becomes a representative. Consequently, it 
is the will of the parties to a covenant which deter- 
mines the amplitude of its range. Of this we have 
abundant examples in our federate system of govern- 
ment. In some departments, and for specified pur- 
poses, a single individual represents the whole Ameri- 
can people : in others, one represents twenty, thirty, 
forty thousand. This depends upon the will of the 
parties who enter into the national covenant; there 
is nothing else to limit and define it ; for it is perfectly 
obvious, that the action is the same, w^hether one man, 
or one million, are to be affected by it. The humble 
representative of the humblest freeholder in the nation, 
may meet the authorized representative of the whole 
nation ; the two may make a contract for the sale and 
purchase, or exchange of property; which contract is 
equally binding upon the nation on the one hand, and 
the individual on the other. Numbers do not afi*ect it. 
The same principle you find in the criminal code of 
all civilized nations. A man meets his neighbour 
and murders him : he sufi*ers the penalty of the law. 
A number of individuals associated together, meet a 
man and murder him — one murders him: they all 
suffer the penalty. Here the deed is the same, but 
the persons affected by it are as one to twelve. 

The commerce of society too, deals largely in this 
principle. A commercial agent is despatched to a 
distant port, and negotiates a heavy contract. Now, 
who are to profit by the speculation? How many 
mercantile houses shall share in the spoils of victory? 
Why, simply those whom the agent represented — for 
whom he acted. And is not the action the same, 
whether one^ or one hundred are benefited? But, on 



ADAM THE MORAL HEAD. 57 

•VN^liat does the extent of the negotiation, as to the per- 
sons affected by it, depend? Manifestly, on the fact 
of their being represented by the agent. Every man, 
to the whole extent in which he is so represented, 
must profit by the adventure; and this is fixed and 
determined by the compact, which created their 
agent. 

Thus also is it in the great and momentous concern 
before us. There is nothing to limit and bound the 
covenant of God with Adam — nothing to determine 
whether Adam only; or Adam and Eve; or Adam, 
Eve and the whole race, shall be affected by it for 
good or ill, as the issue may prove, but the will of the 
parties. If God so willed it, and Adam so agreed to 
it — that he should so act for all human persons — 
should represent the race; then, so it was and so its 
effects are, and must be. The moral body is one: 
the head and members go together : their destinies 
are the same. The question before us, therefore, is a 
very simple one : it refers to a mere matter of histo- 
rical fact. Did Adam act for all men ? 

3. Let us examine the Scripture proofs. As we 
have the history of the world's creation, and its gov- 
ernment, for more than sixteen centuries, summed up 
in the first five brief chapters of Genesis, it would be 
unreasonable to expect much detail concerning this 
covenant : and this, especially, seeing it endured un- 
broken, perhaps not a single week, or even day. Our 
proofs, therefore, of Adam's representative character 
must be almost wholly from other parts of Scripture. 

1. The first class of proofs shall be taken from the 
other covenants which God made at different times 
with man: of these, three may be mentioned, viz: 

The covenant with Noah, (Gen. ch. ix.,) which guar- 
antees to mankind exemption from destruction by a 
flood of waters, the succession of seed time and har- 
vest, and the use of animal food. 

The covenant with Abraham, by which the visible 
church, strictly so called, is constituted ; and the pos- 
session of Canaan is pledged, and also a limiting of 
the great promise of Messiah to his descendants. 



68 ADAM THE MORAL HEAD. 

The covenant with Israel at Sinai, which restricts 
for a time, the blessings of Abraham's covenant, to 
the nation of Israel. 

It will be observed, that in all these, not the persons 
immediately present alone are concerned ; but they 
extend to vast multitudes; to generations yet unborn. 
They, therefore, contain the principle, which we con- 
tend prevails also in the original covenant after which 
they are modelled. Moses records it in Deut. xxix. 
14, 15. "- Neither with you only do I make this cove- 
nant and this oath ; but with him that standeth here 
with us this day, before the Lord our God, and also 
with him that is not here with us this day." The 
Sinai covenant, and all the others, included genera- 
tions of generations, who were to be affected by them, 
for good or for ill. Thus a presumption arises, that 
the Adamic covenant was to affect his posterity : and 
this is strengthened by all his history. ^'For it was 
not said to our first parents only, (observes Witsius, 
i. 69,) Increase and multiply ; by virtue of which 
command the human race is still continued : nor is it 
true of Adam only. ""It is not good that man should 
be alone: HOY does that conjugal law concern him 
alone, '' Therefore shall a man leave his father and 
mother^ and shall be joined unto his wife^ and they 
two shall he one flesh; which Christ still urges." 

2. But we rest not on presumption, however strong, 
we refer to the facts of Scripture; and among these 
we find that the penal consequences, the melancholy 
evils of the breach of the covenant by Adam, fell 
upon his posterity as well as upon him himself. We 
find also that the Bible refers all our woes to Adam's 
act as their origin : through him as the door, they all 
flooded in upon our wretched world. ''By one man sin 
entered into the world and death by sin." Rom. v. 
12. Here is the fact: and from it we argue the pre- 
ceding cause of it : all the race of Adam suffer : this 
is a moral effect and must have a moral cause. For, 
as before hinted, in the government of a perfectly 
holy being, the suffering of holy beings unconnected 
with sin, is an impossibility. The human mind is so 



ADAM THE MORAL HEAD. 59 

constructed, that it cannot believe God would impose 
pain and anguish, where there is no sin. " Shall not 
the Judge of all the earth do right ?" If therefore, 
death came upon all men by the act of the first man, 
it is undeniable, that his_act stands in the relation of 
a moral cause to the universal fact. But it is impos- 
sible that Adam's sin could be the cause of death 
passing upon all men, unless all men were morally 
connected with him : if he did not act /or them — if he 
did not represent them, they could not justly be 
exposed to suffering, and delivered over to death, on 
account of his sin. The moral sense of all men 
revolts at such an idea. What ! shall men suffer who 
have not sinned ! Shall God be charged with inflict- 
ing pain and even death, where there is no transgres- 
sion ! Who is this, that sits in judgment and condemns 
the Governor of the universe ! 

3. But passing all that remains of the context, 
(Rom. V. 12-20,) whose strength we will have occasion 
to bring out hereafter ; let us advert to 1 Cor. xv. 21, 
22. '^ Since by man came death, by man came also 
the resurrection of the dead : For as in Adam all die, 
even so in Christ shall all be made alive." This text 
relates to the resurrection of the body, and only affects 
our argument, by confirming the same point as the 
passage from Romans; whilst it contrasts Adam and 
Christ, and shuts us up to the necessity of either 
rejecting the covenant representative character of 
Christ, or of admitting the covenant representative 
character of Adam. If Adam is not a public moral 
head, neither is Christ: if the latter be, the former 
must have been. 

4. A similar contrast is found in verse 47 of the 
same chapter: "The first man is of the earth, earthy, 
the second man is the Lord from heaven." Now, 
wherefore this bringing together of Adam and Christ ? 
It cannot be because of any personal qualities, either 
of resemblance or of disparity : for in Adam there is 
nothing peculiar, that he should be thus compared and 
contrasted. Nay, but the point of similarity is in 
their ofiicial relations: both are heads, moral heads of 



60 ADAM THE MORAL HEAD. 

distinct moral bodies of men, whose destinies are con- 
nected in law with their conduct respectively. Hence 
in Romans, v. 14, he is called ^'the figure — the type 
of him that was to come," that is of Christ. Adam 
was the type of Jesus Christ, who is the anti-type to 
him. In their legal relations, they were like to one 
another ; as in the printer's art, the letter is the exact 
resemblance of the type, so the representative cha- 
racter of the Redeemer is exactly like the representa- 
tive character of Adam. 

From this branch of the subject, there arises a 
question or two, more curious perhaps than useful, to 
which however, a moment's attention may be given. 
"What position did Eve occupy? Was she an original 
covenanting party; or was she represented by Adam? 

Dr. Ridgely, briefly but candidly states the argu- 
ments in favour of the man alone being the covenant 
head, to the exclusion of the woman, yet gives his own 
opinion in opposition to it. It appears to me that 
his objections are not valid; and that Eve was not 
a representative, but was represented in Adam. 
Because, wdien God gave Adam the covenant, as 
formerly remarked. Eve was not created. It is true, 
that the term Adam, means the race: it is a generic 
term, as well as a proper name: and that in Genesis 
ii. 27, 28, it is said, ^'in the image of God created he 
him; male and female created he them. And God 
blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful 
and multiply," &c.; and that the covenant is not 
mentioned, until verse 16, of chapter ii. But it is 
also true that chapter ii. from verse 4, is an account 
more in detail of what is contained in general in the 
first. In verses 4 — 7, he gives an account of the 
creation, especially of the vegetable, its want of culti- 
vation, and of man. In verses 8 — 17, the planting 
of the garden is described, the tree of life, and of 
knowledge, the rivers, the putting of Adam into the 
garden to dress it and to keep it, and the command 
relative to the forbidden fruit. Then follows a notice 
of his loneliness, his need of a social companion, his 
inspecting the animals, and naming them, but find- 



ADAM THE MORAL HEAD, 61 

ing no suitable help; and then the creation of the 
woman to supply this deficiency. It is manifest the 
woman was not created until after the covenant was 
given: ^^Adam was first formed, then Eve." Surely 
Paul did not mean by Adam, here, to include Eve. 
Therefore Eve was not created when Adam was, but 
after the command relative to the forbidden fruit was 
delivered; and consequently was not a party prin- 
cipal to the covenant. 

2. But if, because the word Adam sometimes 
means man in general, it is right to infer that Eve, 
who was taken out of Adam, was really a party to 
the covenant, which Eidgley seems to account the 
chief reason for his opinion- — the same is true of Cain 
and Seth, and they were parties also. I see no reason 
in the peculiarity of manner, in her extraction, why 
she should be accounted a party, more than Abel or 
Cain. In truth, as I hope to show, the physical or 
material connexion has nothing at all to do in the 
matter ; forms no moral connexion whatever. 

Besides, this argument, from the generic sense of 
the word, man, would include Christ, for he is called 
the second man. ^'The first man is of the earth, the 
second man is the Lord from heaven." Now if man 
in the former case is generic and includes Eve, by 
what rule of criticism can it be restricted in the 
latter? I therefore think that when the Apostle says, 
"By one man sin entered into the world": he does 
not mean— 'by one man and one woman!' But 
moreover, if Eve was a party lihe Adam^ there must 
have been three parties to the covenant, or then 
Adam and Eve must have been, before its formation, 
a moral unity ; which, that they were for any other 
purposes than those included in the marriage cove- 
nant, I think there is no evidence. 

4. The truth appears to be, that God gave this 
covenant to the person^ Adam — as indeed how could 
human nature, a mere abstraction enter into a cove- 
nant ? not however, as an individual person only^ but 
also as a representative of all other human persons. 
The individual Adam and the representative person^ 
6 



62 KELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 

Adam, was to stand or fall for himself^ and for his 
representative body. 

But in this body representative. Eve was included, 
yet only until she should have a personal existence 
and capacity to assume for herself, her covenant 
liabilities : then she was under the covenant for her- 
self only. Had she sinned and Adam retained his 
integrity, she would have perished and Adam and his 
representative body would have remained uninjured. 
Had Adam failed, and Eve maintained her integrity, 
Eve would have survived the wreck of the race. 
When she sinned, she alone fell, the covenant was not 
broken until Adam, the federal head, had trans- 
gressed; then only 

" Earth felt the wound ; and Nature from her seat, 
Sighing through all her works, gave signs of woe, 
That all was lost." 

SECTION VI. 

THE MODE OF CONSTITUTING THE REPRESENTATIVE RELATION, 

Official Stations may be occupied by men whose 
labours may be useful to the public, and honourable 
to themselves, and yet in whose appointment there 
may have been some irregularity. Paul himself was 
not called to the apostleship in the same way as were 
the other apostles. If, therefore, the question be 
raised, in regard to the mode of constituting the rela- 
tions, official and moral, of any individual, we shall 
find, that great diversity exists, whilst the reality of 
the thing is acknowledged. The social and moral 
system of even our country is susceptible of consider- 
able variety. In one state, for example, the governor, 
who represents the whole commonwealth, is appointed 
by the bare plurality of qualified voters, who may and 
shall choose to vote, though that plurality may be a 
minority of all the votes polled, and may not be one- 
twentieth part of the entire population. And yet no 
man who did not attend the election- — no woman, or 
minor, or foreigner, or other disqualified person, 
thinks of challenging the governor's authority, be- 



RELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 63 

cause he or she did not vote; or were not permitted 
so to do. In another State, the governor is elected 
by the legislature. The president of the United States 
is appointed in still a different manner ; and thus it is 
in almost all departments of our political system. 
Different modes of creating the representative rela- 
tion exist: different qualifications for office, and for 
elector exist: but in all, women are excluded. The 
conditions also, of the term of office, both as to dura- 
tion, and extent of honour, are infinitely diversified. 
In some, it is for a single year, or even less; in 
others, for a term of years; in others, for life. 

Now, the point to which your special attention is 
invited, is this: that no diversity as to the manner of 
constituting the relations of representer and repre- 
sented, destroys or invalidates the acts of the repre- 
sentative. A notable instance of this has recently 
occupied the world's attention, and received its sanc- 
tion. The late French indemnity, the refusal to pay 
which, had well nigh lighted up the torch of a bloody 
war, was for acts of violence done to American pro- 
perty, under the reign of Napoleon. In pressing our 
claims, it was alleged, that the imperial government, 
however irregularly constituted, was in fact the repre- 
sentative of the French nation^ and, therefore, that 
nation was bound to pay for all its spoliations on 
American property. The voice of reason, and the 
force of truth, more resistless than the swords of Na- 
poleon and Wellington both, prevailed. The French 
government and people, and the world confessed, that 
even great irregularity in constituting the representa- 
tive, did not nullify his acts. With these views before 
us, we may meet the question of mode, as to Adam's 
becoming the representative of the race. 

1. We see at once, it was not by a popular election, 
wherein a bare plurality of votes decides the question^ 
When this arrangement was entered into, there was 
no man upon earth but Adam ; there could be no such 
election. 

2. Yet no doubt, had God withholden this cove- 
nant until the race had been developed, so that the 



64 RELATIONS OF ^ADAM TO HIS POSTEMTY. 

globe should have been covered with the sons and 
daughters of Adam, all living in perfect holiness, har- 
mony, and love : and had God then made proclama- 
tion to the race, and proposed to grant them con- 
firmation in eternal felicity upon the simple condition, 
that one of their number should stand such a trial as 
lie would prescribe ; and had there been a general elec- 
tion, and every son and daughter of Adam been called 
on for his vote, the venerable Father of the whole, 
would have been unanimously chosen. Without one 
dissenting voice, no doubt, the exclamation would 
have been : Who so fit for such a trial, and to secure 
such glorious results, as the Father of us all? But 
not thus did God proceed: he himself chose the 
representative of the race ; and what would have been 
wisdom in holy men, cannot be folly with God. 

3. Hence we see, the unreasonableness of objecting 
to the doctrine of Adam's representative character, 
because we had no voice in his appointment. If I 
am not mistaken, this is one of the most serious objec- 
tions to the whole doctrine. We feel it to be hard, 
Bome say, that a man should act for us before we were 
born, and that for his acts we should be exposed to 
SUJBFering and death, when it was impossible for us to 
appoint him, and give expression of consent to his 
deed. To this objection, I present three distinct 
replies ; 1. Had these persons been present and been 
called on for their vote, they would undoubtedly have 
appointed Adam to act for them ; their objecting now, 
is therefore, unreasonable, and is a result of their sin- 
fulness. 2. God knows better what is good for man 
than he does himself. He lacked neither wisdom nor 
goodness to direct his choice of a representative to 
stand or fall for the race. 3. Their not having an 
actual and personal choice in appointing Adam as 
their representative, is no valid objection to that doc- 
trine ; and that it is not, is evident from the general 
practices of the freest people on earth. Do not the 
laws of our country bind all our citizens, whether they 
have voted for the representatives or not? Are not 
all minors, and all women, cut ofi" from the elective 



RELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 65 

franchise? And do not they feel the binding obli- 
gations of our laws? If arraigned for any offence, 
can they plead that they never gave their consent to 
them — they had no voice in choosing the representa- 
tives who enacted them? Clearly, there exists no 
government, however democratic, wherein, every in- 
dividual's personal assent is essential to the existence 
of the representative relation and to the authority of 
the law. On the contrary, the most determined 
opposition to the law, and the framer of it, does not 
free men from its obligation. Suppose a national or 
state debt to remain unliquidated, for a hundred 
years to come ; could the generation that will then be, 
object to its payment, on the ground that they' them- 
selves never voted for the men who contracted this 
debt ? If you may not be justly bound by the act of 
Adam, because you did not appoint him to act for 
you, how can you be bound by the act of the men 
who signed a treaty a hundred years before you were 
born ? Thus we see that the principle which subverts 
the covenant of works, subverts also, the entire com- 
mercial aud political foundations of human society. 

But let us not be understood in these replies, to 
rest the cause on their efficiency. By no means : it 
rests on the broad foundation of God's truth. He 
chose Adam to represent his whole race, and Adam 
wisely acquiesced in the choice : nor did opposition 
to his election ever occur until sin produced it. Had 
Adam stood and all the race been at this moment 
basking in the sunshine of heaven's love, not a tongue 
had till this hour moved ; not a voice had been lifted 
in opposition. 

SECTION V. 

THE MORAL RELATION OP ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY, AS HEAD OF THE COVE- 
NANT, IS principal; and his physical relation, as natural pro- 

GENITOP., IS subservient THERETO ; AND NOT VICE VERSA. 

If I am not much mistaken, a frequent mode of 
speech on this subject, conveys the idea, that the 
moral relation of Adam's posterity to him is depen- 
6* 



66 RELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY, 

dent on the physical connection by natural generation. 
There was a seminal inhering of all men in Adam ; 
as the future oak is wrapped up in the acorn ; and this 
acorn, with its contained miniature tree, and all the 
other acorns produced from the same oak, were semi- 
nally in the acorn from which that oak sprang ; and 
thus, all trees were seminally in the first acorn : so 
with Adam. Hence, we hear of all human beings, as 
merely ''Adam developed," unrolled as it were. Now 
to this theory, in itself considered, it is not necessary 
here to raise objections. Its application in morals, is 
that to which I object. It is supposed, that this semi- 
nal or germanic unity, accounts for the moral rela- 
tions of the covenant of works, and the doctrine of 
representation. All men were present in Adam, and 
hence can be held responsible for his acts. To this it 
may be answered, that it would require the theory to 
run a little farther, viz. that all souls of men were in 
Adam's body — -a dream of the theorising fraternity 
which has had its day, and like the " baseless fabric" 
of other visions has passed away. So far, however, 
from explaining representation, this theory destroys 
the doctrine altogether: for if all souls were in Adam, 
and acted in him, then there could be no federal repre- 
sentation ; because each man being present, there 
was no room for another to act for him, he acted for 
himself. Hence it is obvious, that the theories of all 
souls, and of all bodies, and of both souls and bodies, 
being present in Adam, are as inefficient towards 
accounting for the sin and misery of his race, as they 
are visionary, and without foundation in themselves. 
In opposition to these, I maintain, that the moral 
connexion with Adam is the principal, both in the 
order of importance and of nature — that God first 
determined to create rational souls, who should be for 
a time connected with bodies material — should then 
be tried, and being left unrestrained by divine power, 
should fall — that they should be put under a remedial 
law, and a part of them be recovered to a state of 
holy and gracious acceptance with Him, and taken 
from the body to heaven, and subsequently the body 



RELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 67 

should be raised, and the entire redeemed persons, be 
made the instruments of reflecting the glory of God's 
mercy for ever — that this last, is the main design of 
the creation of our world, and peopling it with life, 
vegetable, animal, and rational. Now, I believe that 
the soul and its relations are paramount — the moral 
connexion of all men with Adam is the principal, and 
the mere physical and animal connexion is an inciden- 
tal circumstance— no more than the incidental matter 
of scaffolding to the building. The building rests on 
its own foundation, and the scafi'olding is necessary in 
its place. God's moral creation, and the great moral 
constitution, viz. the covenant of works, is the building, 
whose entire body consists of all human persons. 
These human persons are the component parts of the 
structure, and the great builder sees proper to bring 
each to its position by the material mechanism, 
according to whose laws the human race exists. 
Hence, I infer, that to make the natural connexion 
with Adam Xh.Q basis of the moral, is to found the 
building upon the scaffolding — to make the mere phy- 
sical connexion the reason of the representative rela- 
tion, to interchange the cause and effect. A few 
distinct remarks seem necessary to illustrate my 
meaning. 

1. The soul or spirit is of more importance than 
the body. The redemption of the soul is precious, 
and its value is seen in the ransom that is paid for it. 
^'Ye are not redeemed with corruptible things, such 
as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of 
Christ." The infinite price bespeaks the estimate of 
the soul, in the mind of him who paid it. ''What is 
a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and 
lose his own soul?" It is entirely superfluous to 
occupy time in proof of this remark : its truth is rea- 
dily conceded by all who feel that they have souls to 
be saved or lost. How far a correct belief prevails in 
practice is another thing ; but in the theory, all, 
except atheists and materialists, agree. The spirit is 
valuable above the flesh. 

2. The soul will exist, in a state of blessedness or 



68 RELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 

of misery, apart from the body. " This day thou shalt 
be with me in Paradise.'' It is therefore not depen- 
dent on the body either for its existence or for the 
consciousness of that existence. Its moral relations 
therefore do not depend absolutely and necessarily 
upon its material connexions : those exist after these 
have ceased. The soul, apart from the body, stands 
in the same relation to Adam and to Christ, as when 
connected with it. Why then should it be supposed 
that the moral connexion with Adam is dependent 
upon, and results from, the natural ? Why not rather 
believe that the natural relation results from and is 
dependent upon the moral ; that the body is produced, 
and lives, and dies, and will revive again, merely to 
subserve the interests of the soul? 

3. The principle of these remarks is applicable to 
the whole material fabric of the world. 

"All things are yours" — the whole structure is 
adapted to the development of the intellectual and 
moral powers of man, and for this end are they put 
under his government. He is Lord of all below, 
that by a right use of them, he may expand the 
powers of his immortal part, and fit it for its permanent 
state of residence. True, the material universe con- 
tains much beauty and order; many manifestations 
of the divine power and wisdom, and may be said to 
have had this in view. But the powers of mind and 
heart, which can discover these beauties, and kindle 
to devotion, belong to the soul only, and make their 
approaches to perfection by the legitimate use of all 
things placed within our view. " The heavens declare 
the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his 
handy work," but to whom? to mere animal nature! 
It is manifest that the soul only is capable of per- 
ceiving their beauties ; and if so, they were surely 
created for its advantage. Thus, from the analogies 
of the case, we conclude, that all material things, 
animate, and inanimate, are, and ought to be subser- 
vient to the interests of the soul. In very deed, the 
grand purpose for which this world exists, is to 
display the glory of God's mercy. The Bible repre- 



RELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 69 

sents God as having purposed, before creation, such a 
display. Speaking of God's believing people, the 
great Apostle informs us, that God the Father gave 
them a high character, among the heavenly inhabi- 
tants, and thatj before the creation of the world. 
''Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in 
heavenly places^ [among the heavenly inhabitants.] 
According as he hath chosen us in him before the 
foundation of the world." This eternal purpose or 
decree, in the order of nature, is anterior to its 
execution; and between the purpose, and its fulfil- 
ment, in the actual sanctification of his people, lie the 
creation and adjustment of the whole material system, 
including the bodies of all men. All this must be 
a means towards the accomplishment of the grand 
end. Other worlds display the wisdom, power, and 
goodness of God, and these less or more shine forth 
from the globe we inhabit. But mercy — boundless 
benevolence toward sinful creatures — was an attribute 
unknown, so far as our knowledge goes, in all creation. 
To reveal this, this world was spoken into existence ; 
man was created ; the covenant was made with him ; 
he was permitted to fall; the gospel was preached to 
him; and the entire system of divine truth and 
ordinances was established. No one, I apprehend, 
has or can have, just and adequate conceptions of the 
condescension and benevolence of God, and of the 
scheme of his providence and grace, who does not 
transport himself in imagination away beyond the 
period of the world's creation, and there contemplate 
the councils of infinite wisdom planning the whole. 
In such exercises was the enraptured prophet engaged 
when he exclaimed, " Lord, thou art my God ; I 
will exalt thee, I will praise thy name : for thou hast 
done wonderful things ; thy councils of old are faith- 
fulness and truth." Isa. xxv. 1. And when he intro- 
duces God as exhibiting the same views. ''I am God, 
and there is none like me; declaring the end from 
the beginning, and from ancient times, the things that 
are not yet done, saying, my council shall stand, and 
I will do all my pleasure." Isa. xlvi. 9, 10. And 



70 RELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 

again, ^'I am the first, and I am the last, and besides 
me there is no God; and who, as I, shall call, and 
shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I 
appointed the ancient people? And the things that 
are coming and shall come, let them show unto me." 
Isa. xlv. 6, 7. Thus transported beyond the period 
when time began, and motion first measured it, we 
behold the councils of infinite wisdom, devising the 
glorious scheme for the display of mercy, and select- 
ing its objects, '' according as He hath chosen us in 
Christ before the foundation of the world;" we hear 
Jesus, in that blessed council, ofi'ering himself, — "Lo 
I come — to do thy will God, I take delight;" we 
see his appointment by the Father ; we hear the eter- 
nal word pronounced, and behold the AYorld of matter 
spring into being, as the instrument and means of 
displaying mercy; as the theatre on which is to be 
acted the splendid drama, whose middle scene we wit- 
ness on Calvary, and whose closing act we will behold, 
when in the light of this flaming globe, we shall 
see the judgment set, and the books opened. We 
see the mortal, and yet immortal race of man, — " mid- 
way from nothing to the Deity," — waking into life 
under the breathing of the spirit, pressing onward in 
a long succession of ages towards its destined abode. 
We see His living spirit — a being entirely distinct, like 
Adam, from the fleshy tabernacles, connected for a 
time with the earthly house, and then pass onward 
toward the divine throne. For the accomplishment 
of this glorious display — for gathering in the hosts of 
God's people over all the world, we see nations rise 
and fall ; continents and islands discovered, and peo- 
pled, and Christianized; peace and war; agriculture 
and commerce; literature and science; arts and 
manufactures; the entire frame of human society, 
and all its complicated machinery running their per- 
petual round. All — all these are to terminate; they 
are all to work in the hands of God our Redeemer, to 
the one grand and glorious end — the display of divine 
mercy ^ to the admiration of the intelligent universe. 
Now with such views, is it possible for a man to 



RELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 71 

cherish the belief, that any real or supposed natural, 
physical, material identity or oneness with Adam, can 
account for our being affected for good or ill, by his 
first act ? Is it credible, even supposing the absurdity, 
that there is a certain germ or particle of matter in 
my body, that was in Adam's body when he sinned — 
suppose ^this absurdity to be true, is it credible, that 
this is the reason why I am morally accountable for 
his acts ! 

Take the doctrine of the infinite divisibility of mat- 
ter, and let Adam be so divided as to give a particle 
of his material essence to every one of his descendants 
to the end of time, can any one found his belief of the 
moral relations upon the physical connexion ? • Is it 
the physical unity between man and his children, that 
makes him, in a certain respect, their representative? 
Can there be pointed out a single case, in all the moral 
arrangements of human society, in which such unity 
is the basis of representation? Who believes, that his 
representative in congress, in the state legislature, in 
all the deparments of government, in church and state, 
is such because of a material unity ! 

But I forbear : imagination and reason are equally 
offended. And yet, notwithstanding, grave theolo- 
gians have spoken of the physical or material con- 
nexion with Adam, as constituting the basis of our 
moral relations ; and attempts are made to fasten this 
absurdity upon no less a man than President Edwards. 
This attempt I have refuted elsewhere, and need not 
delay to do it here.* It will be seen, that the identity 
which he maintained, to use his very words, is '4n 
relation to the covenant" — there being a constituted 
oneness or identity^'" — "that Grod, in his institution 
with Adam, dealt with him as a puhlic person — as the 
head of his species"- — ''as the moral head of his pos- 
terity." These italics are Edwards's own, and unques- 
tionably they, and the phrase "moral head," were 
designed to point out a covenant, a federal, or a moral 
headship, in contradistinction from the natural head- 

^ See "The Vmdication," pp, 80, 81. 



72 EELATIONS OF ADAM TO HIS POSTERITY. 

ship or physical connexion as the parent of their mere 
animal nature. 

In conclusion, to sum up and apply; we see, that 
the general doctrine of representation is indescribably 
simple ; that it involves, or rather is founded on the 
doctrine of a moral unity between distinct persons; 
that this is a simple and original element in morals ; 
that it is contained in the essential law of human na- 
ture, and in the Bible: that human society of no 
description could exist without it; that, especially, 
does it pervade all departments of our free institu- 
tions, and is essential to their freedom; that Adam 
was in fact, the moral head of his posterity, repre- 
senting them, and acting for them; that this moral 
headship was created by a divinely instituted cove- 
nant, in concurrence with human volition ; that this 
federal representative relationship of Adam to all 
human persons is the principal, and his physical or 
natural headship is subservient thereto; that indeed 
our whole material world, including the bodies of all 
men, exists in subserviency to our moral world, which 
was brought into being for the grand and glorious pur- 
pose of holding up the illustrious attribute of Divine 
MEKCY, to the wondering gaze of the intelligent uni- 
verse. 

We close the chapter with two reflections. 

1. The great principles of religion, morals, and 
politics, are not diverse but identical. In God's cove- 
nant with Adam, commonly called "the covenant of 
works,'' is contained and taught, the great substance 
of all politics, morals, and religion, so far as natural 
religion, or the religion of man's primitive state is 
concerned ; and we shall see hereafter, that the cove- 
nant of grace introduces no new moral principle, but 
merely applies those of the other covenant in a new 
case. 

2. Mark the condescension, wisdom, goodness, and 
love of God, in making the principles on which our 
eternal salvation must be secured, essentially neces- 
sary to our social existence, our civil and political 
well-being. How ought we to wonder at such con- 



DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 73 

descenslon — to admire such wisdom — to melt in view 
of such goodness — to kindle in rapturous devotion and 
unfeigned thanksgiving, at such love. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE DEFINITION OF LEADING TEEMS — -JUST, RIGHT- 
EOUS, RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTIFY, JUSTIFICATION. 

Due weight has perhaps never been given to the 
common remark, that much controversy would be 
saved by an accurate definition of terms. Words, 
with all the pains that have ever yet been taken to 
settle their meanings, are still very imperfect repre- 
sentatives of thoughts. It becomes, therefore, neces- 
sary to advert to the leading terms in this discussion, 
that their import being accurately determined, we 
may be protected from the vexations attendant upon 
vacillation. 

But here it is necessary to premise, that, although 
I have placed the English words at the head of this 
chapter, yet it is really the meaning of the original 
terms of the sacred writings, after which we must 
inquire. Our ultimate appeal is to the language used 
by the Holy Ghost; and the true and correct sense of 
that must be attached to the words of our English 
translation, however unsuitable these may be to 
express that sense. The translation is admirable, 
but in hundreds of instances, it is not possible to ex- 
press the exact meaning of a word by any one word 
in another language. Such are the changes incident 
to human affairs, that language too must change. 
The merely English scholar will perceive the difficulty 
of translating the words, cotton-gin^ steam-enginej 
republican^ into the language of a people who have no 
such things, and consequently no words to express 
them : so in morals, the shades of meaning often can^ 
not be expressed. 
7 



74 DEFINITION OF. LEADING TERMS. 

This remark is true in reference to the word justi- 
jieatio7i and its affiliated terms. Justify^ though not 
strictly and purely a latin word, yet has a latin origin, 
and means literally to make just. So sanctification is 
the mahing Jioly. Hence, from the similarity of the 
terms and their composition, the Romanists, regard- 
less of Hebrew and Greek literature, and building up 
a system of self-righteousness, maintain, that justifica- 
tion includes the same things, in a good degree, with 
sanctification ; that is, it comprehends the making of 
the person upright; so that personal rectitude, inhe- 
rent, infused grace belongs to it, and is the ground of 
it. And this idea, if I am not mistaken, has not a 
few advocates at the present day in some Protestant 
churches of our country. It is therefore the more 
important for us, and imperative upon us, to derive 
our ideas from the inspired sources of the Bible, and 
to attach to the half Latin, half English word justifi- 
cation^ exactly that meaning which the Spirit of God 
attaches to the words for which it stands. Our inquiry 
is, therefore, continually after the meaning of those 
words in the original Scriptures, for which the terms 
justification^ righteousness^ &c., stand in our English 
Bibles. 

As to the manner of prosecuting the inquiry, it 
may be observed, that no satisfaction is attainable in 
such a case, without a patient examination of many 
places where the words in question occur. Use alone 
is the law of language. Words, mere sounds or marks, 
have no fixed meaning in themselves; they are con- 
ventional signs of thought, and we must inspect their 
actual use to ascertain what sense men have agreed 
to attach to them. By this means, criticism, even in 
a language which men do not understand, may be 
made intelligible to them in a considerable degree. 
How this can be, will be best explained in practice. 
Let us therefore proceed to the detail, and the mode 
I propose, is to quote several passages and to number 
them for convenience of reference: then state the 
true meaning of the terms, referring by number, to 
the passage for proof. 



DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 75 

1. Gen. xliv. 16. ''And Judah said. What shall 
we say unto my Lord ? What shall we speak ? or how 
shall we clear [justify) ourselves?" 

2. Exod. xxiii. 7. ''Keep thee far from a false 
matter: and the innocent and righteous, slay thou 
not: for I will not justify the wicked." 

3. Deut. XXV. 1. "If there be a controversy be- 
tween men, and they come into judgment, that the 
judges may judge them, then they shall justify the 
righteous and condemn the wicked." 

4. 2 Sam. xv. 4. "Absalom said moreover, that I 
were made Judge in the land, that every man which 
hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and / 
would do \iYm justice ' — justify him. 

5. 1 Kings viii. 81, 32. If any man trespass 
against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him 
to cause him to swear and the oath come before thine 
altar in this house : then hear thou in heaven, and do 
and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to 
bring his way upon his head; and justifying the 
righteous, to give him according to his righteous- 
ness." 

6. 2 Chron. xix. 5, 6. "And he set judges in the 
land, throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city 
by city; and said to the judges, take heed what ye 
do : for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who 
is with you in the judgment." 

7. Psal. cxliii. 2. "And enter not into judgment 
with thy servant : for in thy sight shall no man living 
\)Q justijied,''' 

8. Prov. xvii. 15. " He th^t justifieth the wicked, 
and he that condemneth the just, even they both are 
abomination to the Lord." 

Prov. xxiv. 23, 24. " It is not good to have respect 
to persons in' judgment. He that saith unto the 
wicked, thou art righteous; him shall the people 
curse, nations shall abhor him." 

9. Isa. V. 22, 23. "Woe unto them that are mighty 
to drink wine, and men of strength to drink strong 
drink. Which justify the wicked for reward, and take 
away the righteousness of the righteous from him." 



76 DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 

10. Isa. xliii. 26. "Put me in remembrance: let 
us plead together : declare thou that thou mayest be 
justified J' 

11. Isa. xlv. 23, 24, 25. "1 have sworn by my- 
self, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteous- 
ness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee 
shall bow, every tongue shall swear. Surely shall 
one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and 
strength ; even to him shall men come ; and all that 
are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In the 
Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified and shall 
glory." 

Rom. xiv. 10, 11. ""We shall all stand before the 
judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, as I live, 
saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every 
tongue shall confess to God.'' 

12. Isa. liii. 11. "By his knowledge shall my 
righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear 
their iniquities." 

13. Matt. xi. 19. "Wisdom is justified of her 
children." 

14. Matt. xii. 37. " For by thy words thou shalt 
be justified^ and by thy words thou shalt be con- 
demned." 

15. Luke vii. 59. "And all the people that heard 
him, and the Publicans, justified God, being baptised 
with the baptism of John." 

16. Luke X. 29. "But he, willing to justify him- 
self, said unto Jesus, and who is my neighbour." 

17. Luke xvi. 15. Ye are they which justify 
yourselves before men, but God knoweth your hearts." 

18. Luke xviii. 14. " This man went down to his 
h-OVi^Q justified rather than the other." 

19. Acts, xiii. 39. " And by him all that believe 
are justified from all things, from which they could 
not be justified by the law of Moses." 

20. Rom. ii. 13. "For not the hearers of the law 
are just before God ; but the doers of the law shall be 
justified,'' 

21. Rom. iii. 4. "That thou mightest hQ justified 
in thy sayings." 



DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 77 

22. 1 Cor. iv. 4. "For I know notliing by myself ; 
yet I am not her eh j justified ; but he that judgeth 
me is the Lord." 

I cite all the remaining cases in which the word is 
used in the New Testament. Rom. iii. 24, 26, 28, 
30. iv. 2, 5. V. 1, 9. vi. 7. viii. 30. 1 Cor. vi. 11. Gal. 
ii. 16, 17. iii. 8, 11, 24. v. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Tit. iii. 
7. Jas. ii. 21, 24, 25. Rev. xxii. 11. 

With these passages before us, we affirm, 

1. That the original words of Scripture, for which 
the word justify is used in the Bible, are forensic 
terms ; that is, they are used in connexion with the 
proceedings of courts ; they imply a process, more or 
less formal, of investigation and of judgment. Their 
proper application is to judicial matters. 

2. That they, the HebrcAV word particularly, (from 
which the Greek borrows its meaning, so far as the 
New Testament is concerned) signify, to pass a sen- 
tence of judgment in favour of a person — to declare 
him just — that he has the righteousness of the law — 
his conduct has been as the law requires it to be. 

Both these will appear true by a reference to the 
above quoted texts. 

1. Judah and his brethren were arraigned before 
the governor of Egypt, on a charge of stealing the 
silver cup. It is a judicial business ; and he asks 
how shall we clear ourselves ? How shall we justify 
ourselves ? How shall we procure a sentence in our 
favour ? 

2. This case is a rule prescribed to the judges in 
Israel, and God supports it by warning the judges 
that He will not justify — pass a sentence in favour of 
the wicked. 

3. Here are mentioned ^^a controversy between 
men;" ''they come to judgment," before ''judges," 
who are appointed for this express business ; and who 
are bound to pass a sentence according to right; that 
is, in favour of the man who has done right, and 
against the man who has done wrong. The former 
is to justify^ the latter is to condemn. 

Let us take in connexion with this the 5th case, 
^ 7* 



78 DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 

where Solomon speaks of condemniiig the wicked, 
and justifying the righteous, and also the Sth, where 
Solomon again contrasts the two kinds of sentences: 
for and against^ and calls the former a justifying, and 
the latter a condemning; and the 9th, Isaiah speaks 
of justifying the wicked as an enormity for which a 
man is denounced, and by contrast, of taking away 
the righteousness of the righteous, or not giving him 
his just reward; and 14th, where our Lord, in like 
manner, uses the terms, justify and condemn, as ex- 
pressing the opposite judgments. 

Here we have five instances of this contrast. Now 
it is undenied and undeniable, that the plain meaning 
of condemnation, is the passing of a sentence against 
a person, by which the punishment prescribed by law 
is awarded to him, and ordered to be inflicted upon 
him; therefore, justification is the passing of a sen- 
tence in favour of a person, by which the reward 
prescribed by law is ordered to be given to him. 
Nothing can be more conclusive than the evidence of 
these two positions. If then the term, to justify, is 
judicial, and means simply to pass sentence in favour; 
it follows, that to infuse grace, to make the person 
just or holy, to change his moral character is no part 
of justification : it is simply and solely a declarative 
act, and only afi*ects the legal relations of the person. 
Before the judge pronounces the sentence against a 
man, he is wicked and deserves to be punished, just 
as much as after : yet there is no person entitled to 
inflict the punishment, until the judge hands him over. 
But in condemning him, the judge does not infuse 
wicked principles into him, he does not make him de- 
serving of punishment; but simply declares the fact. 
So, before the judge pronounces in favour of a man, 
he is, as the law requires him to be, upright : the 
judge simply declares the fact, he does not at all alter 
the moral qualities of the man. Justifieatiorij there- 
fore, is entirely distinct from Sanetification^ which 
describes the whole work of the Spirit of God in 
changing a sinner into the holy image of God. The 
one refers, simply and only, to the legal relations; 



DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 79 

the other, to the moral qualities; the former is the 
work of the judge, the latter is the work of the 
Creator; the first gives legal security for ever; the 
last qualifies the heart for its enjoyment. 

Another inference from this settlement of the term 
justification, is, that the idea of pardon is not inclu- 
ded in it. Pardon, as we shall see more fully here- 
after, is the passing by of a condemned person, so as 
not to inflict just punishment on him ; it releases him 
from the bonds by which he was bound to sufier : it 
changes his relation to the penal sanction of law; 
it does not at all suppose the person's fulfilment of its 
preceptive claim. ^'But this we may lay aside" says 
Dr. Owen, (Justification p. 118) " for surely no man 
was ever yet so fond as to pretend that ^ij^atow did 
signify to pardon sin ; yet it is the only word applied 
to express our justification in the New Testament." 

Having determined the sense of the principal terms, 
it remains to examine the other two ; Righteousness 
and Just. 

Righteousness is simply straightness : it suggests 
the idea of the law being a right — a straight line; and 
the accommodation of a person's conduct to the law, 
is righteousness.^ ^ But the original expression in the 
Old Testament, which, be it remembered, must ever 
determine the meaning of the phraseology in the New, 
is very nearly allied to the word, to justify. It is 
indeed the same, or rather, there are two words, or 
two forms of the same word, translated righteousness. 
And I venture the criticism with difiidence, not hav- 
ing full time for a sufficiently extended examination; 
that one of them, (p^^) signifies all that which the 
law requires of positive compliance with its precepts, 
in order to secure a sentence of justification; the 
other (^Jp*i2f) all that which the subject of the law has 
done, how far soever it may fall short of the full 
requisition. My diffidence refers to the latter ; as 
to the former I feel confident. pT^^ righteousness^ 
is all that to which the promise of the covenant 
is made; the entire required sum of positive obedience 
to the precept. So Jeremiah, xxiii. 5, speaking of 



80 DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 

the Messiah, says, ^'This is the name whereby he 
shall be called, the Lord our Righteousness." The 
Lord our Redeemer is to us the fulfilling of the whole 
law; ''he is made of God unto us wisdom, and right- 
eoiisnesSj and sanctification, and redemption." There- 
fore he replied to the Baptist's objections against 
baptizing him; 'Hhus it becometh us to fulfil all right- 
eousness." The Mosaic law, in reference to the high 
priest, required him to be washed previously to his 
entering upon the duties of his office. Exod. Ix. 12. 
^' And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the 
door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash 
them with water." Hence as Christ came to fulfil all 
law, as he is the end of law for righteousness, he must 
be washed. Hence, some, blinded by the zeal of 
party, suppose that Christ submitted to Christian 
baptism, which was not yet instituted, and that he 
was submerged. Were Aaron and his sons submerged 
in the bowl in which they washed ? But we may not 
digress. The Saviour's reply shows, that to do what 
the law requires, is righteousness. 

Deut. vi. 25. ''And it shall be our righteousness, 
if we observe to do all these commandments before 
the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us." Action 
according to the requirement of law — doing the com- 
mandments, is our righteousness. 

Psalm cvi. 3. "Blessed are they that keep judg- 
ment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times." 
Active compliance with the rules of right, is always 
accounted the sum and substance of righteousness. 

Prov. xiv. 34. " Righteousness exalteth a nation, 
but sin is a reproach to any people." Li this, as in 
multitudes of cases, righteousness and sin are brought 
into contrast; and therefore the one, becomes exposi- 
tory of the other. Now " sin is the transgression of 
the law," — the action of the moral being in opposi- 
tion to the law. For even in those which are denom- 
inated sins of omission, there is mental action. 
Because when the law's requisition is pressed upon 
the mind's attention, by the incidents of Providence, 
and the act is not according to it; this not acting of 



DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 81 

tlie hand is a result of a decision of the mind not to 
direct the hand to act, in which decision the mind 
itself is active : so that sins of omission, are so called, 
only in reference to the overt or external bodily 
action ; not in reference to the mind. If therefore, 
sin consists in action contrary to law ; and if it be 
the opposite of righteousness, righteousness must be 
action according to law. 

It appears superfluous to dwell upon this branch of 
the subject. All men, one would think, must admit 
the correctness of our definition. Let us then account 
this question as settled: its practical value will 
appear hereafter. 

The term just^ must be accounted in our discussions, 
equivalent to righteous^ for the very cogent reason, 
that they are used interchangeably as a translation for 
one and the same word. For example, Noah is called 
a just man^ Gen. vi. 9; and in Gen. vii. 1, God says 
to him, ''for thee have I seen righteous before me,'* 
whereas in the original, the same word occurs in both 
places; and many more such cases might be selected. 
The equivalency of the terms is therefore indisputa- 
ble. Nor can the general meaning detain us. The 
original expression is the same on which we have dwelt 
so long. It is here, what grammarians would call a 
participial adjective : that which expresses the quality 
of the verb, as existing in the person who performs 
the action which the verb describes. He is a just or 
righteous man who has done only the things required 
of him by the law under which he exists. ''He that 
doeth righteousness is righteous." 

To sum up the whole matter; there is a law given, 
which prescribes to man what he ought to do : it 
requires the active use of all the talents entrusted to 
him. But the prescription of duty, the investment 
with a talent, implies a day of reckoning for its use : 
and a judge to agitate and decide the question 
whether it has been used aright, whether the actions 
required by law have all been performed. This judge 
is to pronounce upon the case, and declare the facts 
as they really are. If he find the person to have 



82 DEFINITION OF LEADING TERMS. 

acted in all respects as the law prescribes, he simply 
declares the fact: this declaration of the fact is justi- 
fication. The ground of it is the upright conduct of 
the man, to which upright conduct the reward is 
promised: this is the man's righteousness. His being 
in possession of this, in other words his having acted 
rightly, makes him a just or righteous man : and the 
judge's declaration makes him d^ justijied man, and as 
a matter of mere justice and right, may, and must, 
claim the rewards of obedience. 
In conclusion let us remark, 

1. The identity of the very terms, and also of the 
things signified by them, in this great question of 
human destinies for the world beyond the grave, and 
for the life that now is. All human jurisprudence, 
and the application of its principles in the judicial 
affairs of men on earth, rests on the broad basis of 
God's eternal truth. How dignified then the study 
of the law! What a noble science it is, when not 
prostituted to the love of money! It has its moral 
rules of right : its rational agents ; its accountability ; 
its judges and advocates; its justification or condem- 
nation. It borrows its principles from religion and 
its sanctions from God; whilst it lends its terms to 
theology, and leads its subjects from reflections upon 
an earthly and fallible, to a heavenly and infallible 
tribunal. 

2. The whole of our ideas about justification must 
have reference to a process of judgment. From this 
the language is borrowed, and is well adapted to carry 
our thoughts forward, toward that grand assize — that 
awfully solemn and magnificent scene, when the uni- 
verse shall stand before the great white throne of our 
Redeemer, and give in their last account. What a 
vast assemblage ! What a stupendous scene ! How 
all the pageant of earthly tribunals sinks into insig- 
nificance before its dazzling splendours! How all 
bosoms become transparent in that light, and all the 
secrets of all hearts lie open to public view! You, 
dear reader, and I will be there. How important 
then, that we have the righteousness of the law! 



REQUISITES TO ADAM'S JUSTIFICATION. 83 

^^Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? Who 
shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh 
uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh 
the truth in his heart. He that doeth these things 
shall never be moved." He who can in truth say, 
^4n the Lord have I righteousness." 



CHAPTER V. 

ADAM'S JUSTIFICATION. 

THE REQUISITES TO ADAm's JUSTIFICATION BY THE COVENANT OP 

WORKS. 

We have examined into the nature of moral govern- 
ment, in general. We have inquired into the pecu- 
liarities of that institution which w^as given to man 
immediately after his creation, as it involved the 
great essential principles of moral rule. We have 
discussed the extent of the covenant, and the repre- 
sentative character of Adam. We have settled the 
meaning of the term Justification, and those allied to 
it. Out of these views naturally arises the inquiry, 
What must Adam do, in order to his justification by 
the terms of the Covenant under which he was placed : 
what is indispensable before God the Judge, can pro- 
nounce him just ? 

The obvious and only correct answer to this is, 
Righteousness, — action according to law. He must 
do the things required of him, before it is possible 
that God should declare him just. The law must be 
fulfilled before it can confer the reward proffered to 
its fulfilment: the work must be performed, or it 
would not be right to give the wages. 

The truth here will be clearly perceived by ad- 
verting to three particulars: innocence; the positive 
requirement of the covenant; and the necessity of a 
limit to probation. 



84 REQUISITES TO ADAM'S JUSTIFICATION. 

SECTION I. 

INNOCENCE. 

Innocence, we have already seen, is, as it were, a 
negative virtue; it implies freedom from positive evil; 
a harmlessness, rather than any positive action. This 
simply entitles to a negative reward — the absence of 
penal evil. The innocent ought not to suffer. So 
long as Adam shall remain free from sin, he shall 
experience none of its evils, and this is the utmost he 
can expect. Unless we have been entirely mistaken 
in our exposition of the general nature of moral gov- 
ernment, exemption from sin is accompanied by 
exemption from punishment. The essence of moral 
government consists in linking indissolubly together 
sin and suffering: freedom from sin and freedom 
from pain : positive compliance with law, and positive 
enjoyment of happiness. To multiply words here 
were to darken counsel. 

SECTION 11. 

ON THE POSITIVE REaUIREMENTS OF THE COVENANT. 

In treating of the covenant given to Adam we saw, 
that under the prohibitory clause, regarding the fruit 
forbidden, there was contained a positive requirement 
of action in the case. The mind of Adam in view of 
the fruit must decide either to eat or not to eat: and 
it is not conceivable that this decision involves no 
activity of the mind. A choice cannot be made with- 
out mental action. Had Adam determined not to 
eat, that determination would have been as really an 
action^ as what occurred when he determined to eat. 

We also saw that under the commination, ''Thou 
shalt surely die," was presented the opposite alterna- 
tive as a consequence of the opposite course of con- 
duct: ''Thou shalt surely live" was as really held up 
before his mind as a motive to obedience, as the 
threatened death was a dissuasive from disobedience. 
As with the people of Israel when God set before 
them life and death, cursing and blessing, so life was 



REQUISITES TO ADAM'S JUSTIFICATION. 85 

promised to Adam as the reward of obedience, and 
death was threatened as the consequence of disobedi- 
ence. To obtain life, he must not only avoid sin, he 
must also perform duty. If then Adam will have life, 
he must keep the commandment given to him. If he 
do this, the promised blessing must be conferred: 
faithfulness on God's part secures this. This then, 
is the simple requisite to Adam's justification ; he 
must do what God enjoined upon him — obey God — 
keep the commandment — the covenant engagement. 
Should he. do this, all that is right, holy, just, and 
true, in the character of God, is pledged to secure 
him in the enjoyment of the promised life: and the 
declaration of his having so fulfilled the law given 
him, is his justification. Thus it is evident, that the 
only requisite to Adam's justification under the origi- 
nal covenant, was obedience^ righteousness^ conformity 
with that law. 

SECTION IIL 

THE LIMIT TO PROBATION. 

There is a third element here, viz: the limit to 
probation. Probation is trying, proving, testing a 
thing to ascertain whether or not, it be what it pro- 
fesses to be. A state of probation, or a probationary 
state, is a state of trial. Adam under the covenant 
of works was in a state of probation. The whole 
period between the time of a moral creature's being 
ushered into existence, and the time when he passes 
under the judgment of the .law, and is condemned or 
justified, is probationary; and to this period, the word 
probation has been generally restricted. Recent wri- 
ters and preachers have, indeed, with characteristic 
laxity of thought and expression, applied it to the 
present state, under the gospel : and if due care were 
taken to limit and define its meaning to the testing, 
proving, trying, of men whether they will hearken to 
the invitations of mercy, or reject them, little or no 
injury would result. But it is much to be feared, 
that the very use of the word in application to our 
8 



86 REQUISITES TO ADAM'S JUSTIFICATION. 

present state, gives encouragement and strength to 
that pride of heart, which, amidst all its defects and 
corruption, still looks to the old broken covenant, and 
vainly hopes, by enduring a probation of works, to 
establish its own righteousness. 

Now the point to which our attention must be given, 
is the high probability, that in the nature of moral 
government there must necessarily be a limit to pro- 
bation — a point of time at which trial ceases, and the 
rewards of virtue or of vice are conferred. For our 
purposes, it is not indispensable to maintain the 
essential necessity of such limit, in order to the full 
idea of moral government. AH that our cause 
requires is, that there must be such limit, in every 
ease, where the universal principles of morals are 
modified by a special covenant. Where specific terms 
are prescribed, and a reward promised upon the fulfil- 
ment, there must be a limit as to time ; otherwise the 
reward never could be claimed. If the probation is 
eternal, it never can be completed ; and if the reward 
is conditioned on the completion of the service, the 
profi'er of it is mockery. If, therefore, we have been 
correct in our exposition of those scriptures which 
teach the doctrine of the covenant of works, there 
must have been a limit or period of time, up to which, 
if Adam had maintained his integrity, he would have 
been confirmed, and established, and secured for ever 
in the enjoyment of life. After the precise period, it 
is in vain to inquire. The Scriptures are silent, 
because it is not necessary for us to know it ; seeing 
that Adam violated his covenant engagement, and 
put an end to the state of trial. Probation ceases, as 
soon as the person fails who is under trial ; the trial 
is then over; it only remains to let the law do its 
duty, in condemning and executing the oiFender. 

SECTION IV. 

RIGHTEOUSNESS THE GRAND REQUISITE. 

From this we draw the general conclusion, that 
compliance with the terms of the covenant — in other 



REQUISITES TO ADAM'S JUSTIFICATION. 87 

words, obedience to the command of God for the time 
allotted him — in other words, righteousness was the 
only requisite to Adam's justification according to 
the covenant: ^^for if there had been a law given 
which could have given life, verily righteousness 
should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath 
concluded all under sin." Gal. iii. 21, 22. Had 
Adam possessed the righteousness of the law, he 
would have been justified, and life been awarded to 
him. But inasmuch as h-e acted contrary to the law, 
he and all his are under condemnation; being deliv- 
ered over by the law, to its just punishment, accord- 
ing to the express terms of the covenant. 

Let us treasure up for future use, then, the im- 
portant truth, that to secure, for himself andhis pos- 
terity, a sentence of justification by the covenant, it 
was necessary for Adam only to oley: the righteous- 
ness that must justify him, does not include, but 
manifestly excludes the idea of sufi'ering: Adam's 
active obedience to law, for the proper period, would 
have entailed eternal life upon the entire race. 



CHAPTER Vie 

ON THE BREACH OF THE COVENANT AND THE CONSE- 
QUENT ADDITIONAL REQUISITE TO ADAM'S JUSTIFI- 
CATION. 

SECTION I. 

god's condescension calculated to secure man's affection. 

Never can we sufficiently admire and adore that 
condescension, in the Most High, by which he bowed 
the heavens and came down to familiar equality with 
man, and made with him a covenant, so admirably 
calculated to secure his everlasting well-being. No 
hard terms were prescribed; no complicated and diffi- 



88 BREACH OF THE COVENANT. 

cult duty; no additional burdens were imposed: a 
single instance of restriction from an indulgence of 
sense, is the whole matter. All creation lies before 
him ; every luxury of new-born nature courts his 
enjoyment. The virgin blushes of a finished creation 
attract his eye; and the ambrosial fruits of an en- 
chanting paradise regale his taste. His unclouded 
intellectual powers too, fit him for scanning the beau- 
ties of surrounding nature, and the still more en- 
chanting glories of the starry firmament. His moral 
powers, undefaced by lust, fit him for holy intercourse 
with angelic hosts and with the Lord of all below and 
all above. Thus made for happiness, and replenished 
with all the means of its present possession and enjoy- 
ment ; his mind and its desires unrestrained in their 
range, except in the single matter of the fruit forbid- 
den; and even this restraint the easy condition of 
everlasting security in bliss ; it were marvellous 
indeed, if man's conformity with God's requirement 
did not give the rivet of eternity to human happiness, 
and transform Eden's bloom into the unfading glories 
of the heavenly paradise. 

Marvellous and unlikely, however, as it must 
prospectively appear, all this has happened. Man 
transgressed and by transgression robbed Eden of its 
beauty, dimmed the lustre of the starry firmament, 
and shut out the light of heavenly joys from his own 
benighted soul. 

SECTION II. 

THE MYSTERIOUS FACT, MAN's FALL, OCCASIONED THROUGH FALSE VIEWS 

IN THE MIND. 

The fall of man is among the dark rolls of histori- 
cal record. The evidence of it quivers in every nerve, 
and thunders in bursting sighs from every heart of 
the race. How it was or could be, that the pure 
spirit of Adam, could be induced to believe the devil 
rather than God; how our first parents could be 
made to put good for evil, and evil for good, we know 
not; philosophy cannot tell, and the Bible is silent. 



THROUGH FALSE VIEWS. 89 

Only this is certain, that the mind cannot choose evil 
as evil^ for its own sake. The law of universal life is, 
that every living being desires happiness : this law is 
irreversible even in hell. Devils damned and for ever 
lost, can, no more than men on earth, desire pain and 
anguish for their own sakes. Before evil can be 
chosen, it must appear to be good. A man may 
choose that which causes pain, as a means of greater, 
and more permanent happiness, as when he takes a 
sickening potion of medicine ; but the act of choice is 
produced by a balancing in the mind, between pre- 
sent temporary pain, and future permanent pleasure. 
In this process, whenever the mind perceives the 
happiness of restored and permanent health, and 
apprehends its reality attainable by means of a 
temporary sickness, and its attendant miseries, the 
attracting influence of the former overpoAvers the 
repulsion of the latter, and choice preponderates in 
favour of receiving the nauseous medicine. The 
enterprising mariner chooses to brave the perils, and 
to endure the pains of a tempestuous voyage, not for 
their own sake, but because of the wealth and means 
of happiness that lie beyond the boisterous ocean. 
Evil must assume in the mind's apprehension the 
appearance of good, before it can be deliberately 
chosen : and this theory corresponds with the histor- 
ical fact; our first mother ^' being deceived was in 
the transgression." 1. Tim. i. 14. ''And when the 
woman saw the tree was good for food, and that it 
was pleasant to the eye, and a tree to be desired to 
make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did 
eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he 
did eat." Gen. iii. 6. Apprehended good, and that 
only, can lead the mind to a deliberate choice: and 
where the thing chosen is really evil, there must 
previously exist some deception — some false view of 
it in the mind as the moving cause of the choice. In 
point then of veritable fact, sin entered into the 
world by, and through, the door of a deluded under- 
Standing, a fact this to be carefully treasured up, for 
8* 



90 BREACH OF THE COVENANT 

it will be found of no small value in our future dis- 
cussion on the second covenant. 

SECTION III. 

THE FALL, A CONSEaUENCE OF LOSS OF CONFIDENCE IN GOD. 

Another aspect of this transaction it may be well 
briefly to notice, viz: the withdrawal of confidence 
from God, and the exercising of it towards Satan. 
God had declared that death would follow the eating 
of the fruit, Satan affirmed the contrary- — ''ye shall 
not surely die." Here are counter assertions: and 
the faith of our first parents failed in reference to 
God's testimony, and passed over to the credence of 
the deceiver and tempter. Hence, it is manifest, that 
ttnbelief is implied in the very nature of sin. The 
law says, that ruin will follow transgression ; the sub- 
ject of law says — I cannot believe it; I shall be wiser 
and happier after transgression. If a man really 
believes, that a certain action will ruin his reputation, 
disgrace his family, and render him permanently 
wretched, can he will its performance ? Or is it the 
hope of escaping detection and punishment, that 
emboldens crime ? Unbelief, therefore, in the truths 
of the testimony borne by the law, is involved in 
every sin. 

SECTION IV. 

THE EFFECTS OF SIN UPON THE LEGAL RELATIONS AND LIABILITIES OP 

ADAM. 

The simple statement must suffice here, because an 
enlargement would anticipate an allotment of another 
chapter. It is only necessary to say, that the mo- 
ment sin is committed, the perpetrator is condemned 
by the law. In human administrations of law, in- 
deed, time and formal processes are necessary before 
a sentence of condemnation can be regularly pro- 
nounced; but the individual mind forms its decision, 
as soon as it becomes acquainted with the fact, that 
the law has been transgressed: with God, forms of 



AND LIABILITIES OF ADAM. 91 

process, and examinations of witnesses have no place. 
His sentence is pronounced as soon as sin is commit- 
ted, and, as we shall see hereafter, Adam sunk under 
the power of death the moment he sinned. The pen- 
alty of the law then seized him, " thou shalt surely 
die." This point is so obvious, it is so perfectly 
accordant with the common sense of all men ; and so 
plainly assumed in all the Bible says on the subject, 
that I am not aware of its having been seriously con- 
troverted. Certainly it needs but to be stated, to be 
believed. All the world believes, that the covenant 
breaker must abide the penal sanction of his cove- 
nant. Adam by sin incurred the punishment of 
death. 

But here a question meets us, of considerable prac- 
tical importance, because of its bearings upon the 
grand doctrine of justification, viz: does the great 
moral principle involved in the covenant continue to 
bind Adam after his transgression? Is he under 
obligations of universal obedience to the will of God 
made known to him ? Has the law a claim upon him 
still, notwithstanding his rebellion? Can both its 
penal and preceptive claims bear upon the same per- 
son, and at the same time? Can a man be bound 
both to do^ and to suffer the will of God? — See Owen 
071 Justification^ 240. 

It is more than likely, that the reader's mind is 
already made up : your answer is at hand, and thai an 
affirmative one. But whilst decision is a virtue, rash- 
ness is a vice. Look well, think closely, and mark con- 
sequences before you commit yourself. Among these, 
if you assume the affirmative, are the difficulties of 
fulfilling the precept, because of the penalties which 
lie in the way. If a man steal, and be incarcerated 
for his ofi'ence, how can he actively labour to make 
reparation, by fulfilling the laws of honesty. If he 
commit murder and be executed, how can he fulfil 
the law of love ? If he sin against God and be cast 
into the prison of despair, and die under the curse, 
how can he glorify the law by a holy obedience? 
Would it not be unjust to demand of the imprisoned 



92 BREACH OF THE COVENANT 

thief, or murderer, or rebel against God, a hand and 
a heart actively employed in the holy duties of love ? 
How can they perform them ? If both the precept 
and penalty may bind a man, is he not bound to im- 
possibilities ? And can a man be bound by impossi- 
bilities ? 

On the other hand, if you deny that the penal 
claims of law upon Adam are additional to the pre- 
existing preceptive claims; in other words, if you 
maintain, that when the penalty seizes him, the pre- 
cept lets him go — that he cannot be held by both at 
the same time; then, among the troublesome conse- 
quences are, 

1. Release from moral obligation by its infraction. 
Sin itself releases the sinner from the obligation to 
obey: consequently, 

2. The moment transgression cancels the obliga- 
tion to obey, there can be no farther transgression^ 
because there is no law requiring active obedience, 
and where there is no law there is no transgression. 
Sin, after the first sin, there can be none. 

3. Therefore no moral being can commit any but 
one sin: consequently, 

4. There can be no gradation in criminality, 
except as to the magnitude • of the first ofi'ence ; for 
there can be no multiplication of ofi*ences. 

5. Consequently, the devil is no more vile and 
guilty now, than at the first moment of his fall ; and 
his interminable advancement in wretchedness is 
impossible ; for it would be obviously unrighteous to 
increase the misery of a criminal whose criminality 
was not increased: consequently, 

6. Satan and all his companions are in a state of sin- 
less perfection; for generations of generations they 
have existed without violating the law of God ; for there 
is no law over them, requiring their active obedience. 
For, 

7. The penalty is mere suffering, inflicted by the 
law as its expression of hatred against sin, and the 
suffering soul cannot be willing to suffer, for the obvi- 
ous reason, that it is contrary to thelaw of its nature; 



AND LIABILITIES OF ADAM. 9S 

and, moreover, it is a contradiction in terms; be- 
cause the very idea of enduring pain implies revul- 
sion of nature; opposition of will. Should Satan 
yield up his will to the will of God and acquiesce in 
the torments of hell, is it not manifest that hell that 
moment changes its character and becomes happi- 
ness? 

8. But again, as to civil society, for you will still 
bear in mind that morality is still morality, whether 
in the government of God or of man. The religion 
of the Bible is the morality that must govern man 
here, and hereafter — now and for ever. The criminal, 
on whom the hand of penal justice is laid, is lifted 
above all law, except, simply, the law which makes 
him to suffer. Whilst suffering for theft he cannot 
commit theft, because he is not bound now by the 
law's precept, which forbids it. And so of all other 
offences. Thus there is an end of all law and all 
government, human and divine: there is no differ- 
ence between virtue and vice. Let us eat and drink 
and profane and blaspheme God, hell holds a jubilee, 
and to cross the impassable gulph is no longer desira- 
ble! 

Such are some of the troublesome consequences of 
maintaining that the precept of law ceases to bind a 
man at the moment he falls under its penalty — that 
the moral precept, and the penal sanction cannot run 
parallel with one another. We therefore conclude, 
that moral obligation to holy obedience is eternal; 
for its cessation would make the sinner independent 
of God. This doctrine would lead by a short pass- 
age to heaven, through the shades of hell: but it 
is false, and the truth rises from its ruins: Adam 
and his tempter are now, and were at first bound, 
and will for ever be bound, equally, to obey God's will 
made known to them. Consequently, the penal obli- 
gation is additional to Adam; and if he could have 
been justified by the covenant before its violation, 
only by its positive fulfilment — by working HgTit- 
eousness — he can afterwards be justified only by 
working righteousness^ and exhausting the whole 



94 BREACH OF THE COVENANT, ETC. 

curse of the law; that is, by satisfying its penal 
claim. Before he can come up to the law in its cove- 
nant form and claim the promised life, he must fulfil 
precept and penalty both. Before God can declare 
him a just man, that is, justify him, he must be just 
indeed. These two things are indispensable to 
Adam's obtaining life by the covenant. He must 
exhibit a righteousness as long and as broad as the 
law, and he must endure the wrath of God. 
Upon the whole subject, let us remark, 

1. The understanding of man failed him ; he was 
foiled by the tempter, before sin enfeebled his pow- 
ers; much less now, when the soul is in ruins, can 
man's wisdom adequately direct him in the path of 
duty, and qualify him to withstand the wiles of the 
devil. 

2. He who trusteth to his own heart is a fool; 
pride of intellect shuts the door of heaven, and "a 
haughty spirit goes before a fall." 

3. Sin does not diminish our moral responsibilities ; 
it always increases them. 

4. Hence the inevitable necessity of eternal tor- 
ment to the finally impenitent. The fires of the se- 
cond death burn upon the lost spirit : it rises, writhes, 
and resists: its anguish and maddened resistance 
burst forth in fiercer and still more fierce enmity 
against God who taketh vengeance. This increase 
of virulent wickedness calls down renewed expres- 
sions of divine wrath, and thus the breath of blas- 
phemy fans the flames of everlasting death. 



95 



CHAPTER VIL 

OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN, TO HIMSELF 
AND TO HIS posterity; PHYSICALLYj INTELLEC- 
TUALLY, AND MORALLY. 

SECTION I. 

THE PHYSICAL CONSTITUTION OF THE WHOLE RACE IS DERANGED, 
INJURED AND ENFEEBLED BY SIN. 

To believe that effects proceed from causes, is an 
original, and I am disposed to think, an inexplicable 
law of the human mind. If I am seized with a sud- 
den and violent pain in my head, I infer instantly, 
that it proceeds from some cause ; and though I may 
not be able to trace the connexion, and to ascertain 
satisfactorily what the cause is, the belief still re- 
mains fixed in my mind, that this pain is consequent 
upon some change in the system — stoppage of some 
blood vessel, which does violence to some nerve — and 
this is called the cause : and its eluding my search 
does not in the least degree shake my belief in the 
reality of its existence. 

Now though I use the word, consequences^ at the 
head of this chapter, the reader is not to expect me, 
even to attempt here, to show the connexion — to dis- 
play the manner in which the antecedent, sin^ draws 
after it the consequences or effects. The design is 
cherished, simply to deal in the facts of the case, viz : 
to show that consequent upon the sin of Adam— sub- 
sequently thereto, certain facts did and do take place 
in our world. The question, in reference to the al- 
leged facts, shall still be the simple and very proper 
inquiry, proposed to the first Christian martyr, by 
the high priest, when presiding in that court, which 
was to pronounce upon his life or death, ^'Are these 
things so?" Certain positions will be stated on- the 
three points, respectively, and this question will be 
answered in reference to them. As to the legal rela- 



96 CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. 

tions of the facts, we may discover how, and how far 
they are connected with the conduct of Adam, viewed 
as right or wrong — as a fulfilment or breach of the 
covenant under which he was placed ; that belongs to 
the great doctrine of original sin, to which our atten- 
tion will be called shortly. Then it will be in point 
to raise the question — Is man's bodily infirmity con- 
nected with his sin, with his intellectual imbecility, his 
moral depravity ? Is it a penal evil ? Now, let the 
inquiry be simply, ^'whether these things are so." I 
affirm, that the physical constitution of Adam^ and of 
his whole race^ is deranged^ injured^ and enfeebled by 
sin. 

Whether the body of Adam was rendered immor- 
tal by the use of the tree of life, and subsequently 
rendered mortal by the physical operation of the fruit 
forbidden, is a speculation, more curious than profita- 
ble. We are certain however, that death is the wages 
of sin: nor should there be any doubt, as to the nature 
of that death. It did, unquestionably, include the 
dissolution of the body. " Dust thou art and unto 
dust thou shalt return." That bodily dissolution was 
to be, and is, brought about by moral evil, is not dif- 
ficult to perceive. The first death that transpired in 
the family of Adam, teaches us to refer bodily disso- 
lution very directly, to moral depravity. Corrupt 
passions rankled in the heart of Cain, and led to the 
death of his brother. The same corrupt feelings now 
tend directly to derange the system of the individual 
in whose bosom they are fostered, and to enfeeble, by 
deranging the action of its parts, the power of that 
action. Just as we see its operation now, so was it 
from the beginning. Moral turpitude shortens human 
life, and renders that short life wretched. It is mat- 
ter of every day's observation, that the victims of 
vice do not live half their days: and hence we should 
expect, that such as experience the power of religion 
and lead lives, in the main, virtuous, other things 
being equal, would live longer than wicked men. 
Observation upon the facts, abundantly confirms the 
theory here. So the Scriptures^ which refer to the 



CONSEQUENCES OP ADAM'S SIN. 97 

pure state at which the church shall arrive, represent 
it as characterized by an extension of human life. 
^' There shall be no more thence an infant of days nor 
an old man that hath not filled his days: for the 
child shall die an hundred years old: but the sinner 
being an hundred years old shall be accursed." Isa. 
Ixv. 20. " There shall yet old men and old women 
dwell in the streets of Jerusalem." Zech. viii. 4. 
Whether then it be directly, or indirectly, sin undoubt- 
edly has operated most injuriously upon the physical 
constitution. No man can make himself believe, that 
pain, disease, feebleness, and death temporal, are un- 
connected with sin. 

But there is one aspect of the subject, to which 
more particularly our attention ought to be directed, 
viz : that these ruinous effects did not fall upon Adam, 
peculiarly in his own person. Indeed his life is 
among the longest in the human annals ; and the pre- 
sumption is, that it was not particularly burdened 
with sickness, pain and anguish. Whereas, in later 
periods, the duration of life has dwindled to less than 
one-tenth of his, and even these few days are full of 
evil. Here, every man carries the evidence of the 
fact in his own consciousness : he feels it, and knows 
that his bodily constitution is in a corrupt and feeble 
state. That it is so, as a result of moral evil, will 
farther appear in the sequel. Let us meanwhile re- 
member, that the first parent and all his descendants 
participate in those physical defects which lead to 
death and dissolution. 



SECTION II. 

ADAM AND ALL HIS CHILDREN SUFFERERS IN THEIR INTELLECTUAL POWERS 

BY THE FALL. 

That our first parents were omniscient; or, that they 

made a very close approximation to omniscience, we 

have not maintained : but, that they became wiser by 

gin, we must deny. To lead the mind to the conclu- 

9 



98 CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. 

sion, that sin has darkened it, the following consider- 
ations will probably suffice. 

1. Our first parents vainly attempted to conceal 
their degenerate and fallen state from God. This 
they did, by sewing fig leaves together, and by hiding 
^Hhemselves from the presence of the Lord God 
amongst the trees of the garden." A sense of guilt 
led to folly, but the folly is not therefore the less 
manifest. Did innocent Adam ever betray such 
ignorance, as to think he could conceal himself from 
the searching eye of his Maker ? Did ever that pure 
and holy being, who had heretofore delighted in the 
presence of God, display such ignorance of his cha- 
racter ? 

2. The same is evinced by the attempt to deceive 
God by a false, or, at least, an unkind and disingenu- 
ous excuse. ''The serpent beguiled me and I did eat 
— the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she 
gave me of the fruit and I did eat." 

3. What is true of the father is also true of the 
children. The intellect of man is enfeebled; his un- 
derstanding is darkened : he knows not the things of 
the spirit of God. As this is a controverted point — 
as some Christians seem to maintain the doctrine that 
sin has not enfeebled the powers of the human intel- 
lect; and as their doctrine must be refuted and re- 
jected, or the doctrine of spiritual illumination cannot 
be maintained, it will be necessary to look a little 
more in detail into the Scripture testimonies here. 
These may be classed into such as directly affirm 
the blindness of the mind, and such as indirectly 
teach it. 

1. The mind is often represented as hliyid: ^'The 
Lord shall smite thee with blindness — and thou shalt 
grope at noon day, as the blind gropethin darkness." 
Deut. xxviii. 28. There is reference here to blind- 
ness of mind : as a curse for sin, God would withdraw 
his light : or which is the same thing, he would not 
strengthen their minds and enable them to compre- 
hend his truth. 

''So Isaiah vi. 9, 10. "Hear ye indeed, but under- 



CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. 99 

stand not ; and see ye indeed, but perceive not, make 
the heart of this people fat, and make their ears 
heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see with their 
eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with 
their heart, and convert and be healed." Here is 
a mixture of figurative and plain language, and it 
forces its own interpretation upon us. Did God 
create ignorance, mental blindness ? Create a nega- 
tive? Can it mean any thing more than God's with- 
holding those influences of his Spirit which alone can 
give clearness and strength to the intellect, and ena- 
ble men to comprehend things heavenly and divine ? 
Assuredly, the Saviour's application of this passage, 
Math. xiii. 13, plainly demonstrates a deficiency '' in 
the faculty of understanding." 

The same thing is taught in those numerous in- 
stances of our Saviour's restoring sight to the blind. 
It cannot be reasonably doubted, that his holy provi- 
dence refused, at the first, to give natural vision to 
the man born blind, in order to ajBFord an opportunity 
to the Saviour, of displaying his own sovereign and 
almighty power in giving him the faculty of vision; 
and therein teaching the doctrine of spiritual illumi- 
nation by a supernatural influence. So he often 
speaks of the natural state of the soul or mind, as a 
state of darkness and blindness ; and Paul speaks of 
their ^'having the understanding darkened;" ''Blind- 
iiess in part has happened to Israel." From a por- 
tion of this nation God was pleased to withhold the 
spiritually illuminating influences of his grace : they 
were left in their native darkness. 

2. The doctrine of the Spirit's illumination, implies, 
the soul's previous darkness. Every passage of Scrip- 
ture, therefore, that inculcates the fact, or the neces- 
sity of such illumination, teaches also, the doctrine, 
that man's intellect is degraded, darkened, and enfee- 
bled by sin. 

Paul, Eph. i. 17, prays, " That the God of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, the father of glory, may give unto 
you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the know- 
ledge of him ; the eyes of your understanding being 



100 CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. 

enlightened:" and again, Eph. iii. 17, ^^That Christ may 
dwell in our hearts by faith, that ye being rooted and 
grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with 
all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, 
and height, and to know the love of God." Jeremiah 
xxiv. 7, says concerning those, whose blinding, Isaiah 
described, '^and I will give them aheart to know me" 
— and to this accords the Saviour's declarations. Matt, 
xi. 27, ^^and no man knoweth the Son, but the 
Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save 
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal 
him;" and those to whom he does not reveal him, 
know him not; as Christ says, John viii. 55, ''ye 
have not known him." Christ also promises the Holy 
Ghost to "teach you all things — to take of mine and 
show it unto you — and ye need not that any man 
teach you, for the same anointing, viz : the Spirit, 
teacheth you all things;" and without this teaching, 
the ''natural man understandeth not the things of the 
spirit of God, neither can he know them, for they are 
spiritually discerned." All these, and many more 
passages of Scripture, carry home to the mind, unso- 
phisticated by a metaphysical theology, a full and 
thorough conviction, that the understanding of man 
needs to be enlightened, and is therefore darkened, 
and unable without this supernatural aid of the Holy 
Spirit, to comprehend divine things. The powers of 
the mind, the faculties of the soul are not annihilated, 
but deranged in a degree, enfeebled so that they do 
not in fact, nor can they, until renovated and reinvig- 
orated, discern holy things. The mental eye is not 
indeed entirely destroyed, but so distorted, its fluids 
so displaced and mixed up, that no clear and distinct 
vision is possible, until the good and the great Physi- 
cian shall have operated upon it; restored its deran- 
ged parts, and ensured their right action towards one 
another, and let in upon it, according to the strength 
of its resuscitated powers, light from the sun of right- 
eousness. 

It is objected to all this, that the eyes of the under- 
standing, unaided by the Spirit, do not indeed com- 



CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. 101 

prehend the truths of religion, in a right and saving 
manner ; but this is not owing to any defect in its 
powers, but to a deficiency of light, because of some 
external hindrances. Spiritual truth does not enter 
the eye of mental vision, and therefore cannot be Un- 
derstood; but the powers of perceiving remain undi- 
minished, and all that is necessary, is to remove the 
film or external hindrance ; the light enters and the 
man discerns the things of the Sprit. Those external 
hindrances are the lusts and corruptions of the fiesh, 
which blind the eyes of the understanding by prevent- 
ing the light of truth from entering. In conversion 
these lusts are removed, and the light enters and men 
see clearly. 

1. To this I answer, that there is a little false philo- 
sophy here. It is assumed^ that the lusts which prevent 
spiritual vision are external to the understanding — in 
fact, that they exist out of the mind. They are like 
the wall of a contiguous house, which darkens my 
window, but forms no portion of my house. Or at 
least, it is assumed^ that the understanding is one part 
of the mind, and the corrupt affections another part, 
and this latter part still throws an opaque mass be- 
fore the other, and intercepts and turns into its own 
dark bosom, the rays from the sun of righteousness. 
This I suppose, to be false philosophy : for the mind 
is a simple substance; it does not consist of parts. 
The understanding is not one part of the soul, and 
the lusts, or affections, another part. The under- 
standing is the mind itself, perceiving and comparing 
things — reasoning; and the lusts or desires are the 
mind itself, desiring. The understanding has no ex- 
istence apart from the mind ; the corrupt affections or 
holy affections, have no existence apart from the 
mind ; and therefore, all that language which tends to 
represent the sinful desires, as standing outside and 
preventing religion from entering into an apartment 
of the mind, already well disposed to receive it, all 
swept and garnished for its reception, is well adapted 
to lead to deception, and must be utterly discarded. 

2. The very reason of the objection admits a fact 

9* 



102 CONSEQUENCES OF AjDAM'S SIN. 

fatal to the objection: that the corrupt lusts prevent 
the understanding from seeing spiritual things aright. 
We agree in the fact. But these lusts are as much 
in the mind as the powers of understanding. The de- 
ficiency, therefore, is in the mind, and we cannot look 
beyond itself, for the causes of this deficiency. If 
you conceive the understanding to be one part of 
the mind, and the lusts another part of the mind, 
standing between the former and the sun of right- 
eousness; why does not the understanding remove 
the obstruction ? If it cannot remove the obstruc- 
tion, it must abide in darkness : and this is the evi- 
dence of its imbecility. But I am not now to discuss 
the doctrine oi ability^ and what has been said, will, I 
hope, satisfy the reader as to the humbling fact in re- 
ference to the whole race of Adam, that by reason of 
sin, they have ''become vain in their imaginations, 
and their foolish heart was darkened," — "professing 
themselves wise, they became fools," — ''darkness cov- 
ered the earth, and gross darkness the people." 



SECTION III. 

THE MORAL AFFECTIONS OF ADAM AND HIS POSPERITY BECAME DEPRA- 
VED BY HIS SIN. 

Few men have been so left to the unrestrained domi- 
nion of sin, as to have denied altogether its corrupting 
influences on the heart — as to have maintained, that 
the feelings and affections of the race are, and always 
have been, such as became the Creator originally to 
produce. Rarely has the effrontery of infidelity so 
run riot, as to charge upon the Creator, the folly 
and crime of creating man as he is, with all his wick- 
edness in him. On the contrary, it is generally 
agreed, even by the open neglectors of religion, that 
man was originally created holy and upright — that 
his corruption did not originate with his Maker, but 
had its origin in his own voluntary action. All, it 
appears to me, who admit an essential difference, 



CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. 103 

between virtue and vice, go thus far in the way of 
truth. 

The Bible account of man's corruption is simple : 
he disobeyed the command of God, and God left him, 
in a degree, to the desires of his own heart. Previ- 
ously to this dereliction from the path of duty, the 
divine power sustained and directed the action of hu- 
man affections towards himself; but afterwards God 
withheld, to some extent, those influences by which 
the heart of Adam was drawn towards himself, and a 
consequence was, alienation from his Maker ; Adam's 
feelings and affections wandered after forbidden joys ; 
he sought his happiness, not in the delightful commu- 
nion of God ; but in intercourse with the creature. 
Like his children in a distant age, he loved and ser- 
ved the creature more than the Creator. His conduct 
in hiding from God, to which we have referred for 
another purpose, is also available here : it shows an 
alienation of affection. Had his delight been in God 
as the chief good, this desire for concealment could 
not have possessed his mind. Of his moral feelings, 
we have not another exhibition in the Bible history ; 
but the course of God's dealings plainly shows, that 
man's heart was not upright in him; he sought 
out many inventions. " Adam being in honour abode 
not." 

Now "who can bring a clean thing out of an un- 
clean? Not one." Consequently, as was the parent 
of the race, so is the race. Many a proverb expresses 
this general truth. " The stream cannot rise higher 
than the fountain:" "Men do not gather grapes of 
thorns, nor figs of thistles:" "Every tree is known 
by its fruit :" the parent stock of the race, must send 
forth scions according to its own nature. Such is the 
judgment of common sense: that is, of mankind in 
general, as expressed in the proverb — "like begets 
like." Such also is the plain declaration of the Bible: 
"Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his 
image; and called his name Seth." That his first 
son was morally depraved, his conduct testifies : and 
that his second was so also, Abel's sacrifice; which he 



104 CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. 

offered to God, fully acknowledged. '' And Abel, he 
also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat 
thereof." Here was a bloody sacrifice, wherein there 
is set forth and confessed, on the part of the worship- 
per, desert of death. 

The history of the race from that period until 
Noah's mission, a space of more than fourteen hun- 
dred years, brief as it is, affords sufficient evidence on 
the point of moral character, greatly to strengthen 
our position. ' And at this period, the testimonies are 
exceedingly plain and as pointed, as plain. For 
" God saw that the wickedness of man was great 
in the earth, and that every imagination of the 
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." 
''The earth also was corrupt before God; and the 
earth was filled with violence: And God looked upon 
the earth, and behold it was corrupt, for all flesh had 
corrupted his way upon the earth." Gen. v. 11, 12. 
Hence the flood of waters : but not all the billows of 
the deluge could wash away the pollution of the earth. 
We see the foul stain immediately after its close. 
The vineyard of Noah, the tower of Babel, the plains 
of Nineveh — the wars of the kings, the life, even of 
Abraham and Isaac, of Jacob and of the twelve patri- 
archs, do they not all testify to the truth, that the 
whole race is corrupt ? What is history, but a crimi- 
nal record ? What are chronological epochs and eras, 
but points rendered illustrious by some splendid result 
of immorality ? 

Shall I spend time and labour in making more evi- 
dent, the truth of a position, whose truth burns in 
every sting of a condemning conscience ; as it throbs in 
every sally of unholy desire? Must the forms of ar- 
gument be followed up, when you can no more doubt 
of the truth to be evinced than you can doubt of your 
own existence ? Is it possible, in the entire compass 
of human thought, to select a truth more thoroughly 
riveted in the convictions of the race, than this very 
truth; that the earth is corrupted before God; 'Hhe 
thoughts of man's heart are only evil continually/'^ 



CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN. 105 

^Hhe heart is deceitful above all things and desperately 
wicked?" Surely not, and therefore I forbear. But 
let us remember distinctly, the matter before us, as 
merely a matter of fact — such is the moral character 
of the race. This is the fact. The mode as to its 
legal hearings is not before us. We have seen, in- 
deed, how it follows Adam's sin; but the nature and 
necessity of this consequence will appear in our next. 
Let us close this chapter with one or two reflections. 

1. We are mortal; our bodies are infected with the 
virus of corruption and tend rapidly to decay. Death 
will soon shut our eyes on all that earth holds dear to 
us. A century hence, and this living earth, we call 
ourselves, and which we cherish so tenderly, will lie 
undiscriminated in its kindred clay. What a fact is 
this for the contemplation of the rational mind ! How 
humbling to human pride ! How instructive to the 
wise in heart ! 

2. " Vain man would be wise, though man be born 
like a wild ass's colt." Pride of intellect ! how pre- 
sumptuous ! Let us remember, that our intellectual 
strength must come from God. 

3. Yfho of us can wash his hands before God, and 
say I am ckan ? Tea, let us hide our heads in the 
dust before him, for our first father became corrupt 
and we are unclean. Let each one for himself con- 
fess, ''Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did 
my mother conceive me." Yet, let us not faint, but 
pray, " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; 
wash me, and I shallbe whiter than snow." 



106 



CHAPTER VIII. 

ON ORIGINAL SIN. 
SECTION I. 

THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM. 

" Sin Is the transgression of the law." With this 
definition of the Apostle, I am content. A better, I 
am persuaded, no one will ever present in so few 
words. That it covers both the negative and positive 
precepts, we have already seen ; or, to speak with 
more precision, it extends to all the acts of mind, 
whether such as occur when it determines to obey 
God, in his command to abstain from bodily action ; 
or when He directs to perform it. The body is the 
mere index to the mind, like the face of a clock, 
showing its internal action; but with this exception, 
that like the hands of a clock which are too loose on 
their axis, it often fails to point out the movement of 
the mind within. Now, we are not up to the line of 
truth and duty, when we look merely at the external 
face ; we must have regard to the inward movements : 
the mind itself— the soul is the moral being, it alone 
is capable of committing sin : and with Paul we have 
seen, that sin is the mind's acting contrary to law. 
The theory therefore, which makes sin a mere nega- 
tive is to be discarded as theory only, inconsistent 
with Scripture language, and with the truths and facts 
of the case, and at variance with sound philosophy, 
that is, with common sense. "Sin is the transgression 
of the law.'' 

Original sin must then be the original transgres- 
sion ; or the transgression at the origin or beginning : 
and it is obvious, the term must be attached to some 
person or persons before it becomes expressive of any 
particular sin. A sin which occurred at the origin or 



OKiaiKAL SIN. 107 

beginning of what, or whom? The sense of the 
phrase, original sin^ must materially depend upon the 
response to this inquiry. Should it be answered : at 
the origin of moral beings ; — then, as the angels were 
created and some of them fell, perhaps before man 
was created, certainly before he fell, original sin 
must mean the sin of Satan — the first sin of which 
we have any knowledge. But in this sense, the word 
is not at all used by theological writers : and, as it is 
not a Bible expression, we must ascertain its right 
meaning from those who do use it. To this we may 
be aided by contrast. The Westminster divines, and 
others, use the phrase, original righteousness^ to sig- 
nify that uprightness^ holiness^ rectitude .of moral 
character, which Adam possessed at his creation, and 
before he sinned : and this they bring into immediate 
contrast with the sin in question. "• By this sin [ori- 
ginal sin] they fell from their original righteousness." 
And so, in the IX. Article, the English establishment 
says of original sin, it is, that '^ whereby man is very 
far gone . from original righteousness.'' In this, 
which I think is the primary, though not the chief 
application of the term, it is not restricted to the act 
of Adam and Eve : for we find it extended by almost 
all writers, and in almost all evangelical confessions, 
to the immediate efi'ects of the act upon the persons 
of the actors. Thus, in the two confessions just men- 
tioned, they speak of man's loss of '' original righte- 
ousness," and of his being ^' of his own nature in- 
clined to evil ;" of destitution of holiness, and of 
communion with God, and so he became " dead in sin, 
and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of 
soul and body." 

But in the same confessions, and in very many 
other writings, the phrase is applied to the act of 
Adam, inclusive of its immediate consequences to his 
posterity also. Hence they speak " of original or 
birth-sin^'' and after mentioning ''the guilt of Adam's 
first sin" — the want of righteousness, corruption, in- 
ability, opposition to all that is good and inclination 
to all evil; they add^ " which is commonly called ori- 



108 ORIGINAL SIN. 

ginal sin,'' We have therefore this two-fold practi- 
cal definition of the phrase original sin^ in both of 
which there is a departure from the strict significa- 
tion of the terms respectively, viz: the first act of 
Adam's disobedience and its effects upon himself; and, 
the same act with its effects upon his posterity. 

Should it be objected, that this is a very vague defi- 
nition, that it makes nothing precise and certain ; I 
reply, that we should ever be on our guard against the 
supposition, that the definition of mere terms or 
phrases can ever give us an accurate idea of the 
things. This is not at all the design of defining terms. 
The definition of a word^ simply, and only, points out 
to what thing we apply it. The precise explanation, 
exposition, or if you will, definition of the thing^ is a 
subsequent matter, in comparison with which, the 
former is a mere trifle. To know that men have 
agreed to apply the name limestone^ to a certain 
solid substance, is not without some advantage ; but 
to know what are the properties and uses of that sub- 
stance, is quite a different thing, and of infinitely 
greater advantage. To know that theological writers 
apply the phrase, original sin^ first to Adam's first 
offence and its effects upon himself personally, and 
also, to Adam's first offence, and its effects upon his 
posterity, will be found useful ; inasmuch as it will 
enable me to turn your attention toward the thing, 
in either case, by the simple utterance of the words. 
But to understand the thing — to comprehend the re- 
lations of Adam and of his people to God and his 
law ; their liabilities in consequence of that act, and 
its effects upon him and them ; how different this, and 
how infinitely more important ? 



SECTION II. 

THE DEFINITION OF THE THING. 

Now, the explanation of the thing, to which the 
phrase original sin is applied, is already in part, be- 
fore you. The effects of his act, in some degree, im- 



IMPUTATION. 109 

mediate and more remote upon Adam, and also upon 
his people, in reference to their physical, intellectual 
and moral constitutions, formed the subject of the last 
chapter ; and yet they are intimately connected with 
this discussion, and indeed form a part of it. We 
felt ourselves obliged to anticipate a little, the ques- 
tion concerning the legal relations of Adam. The 
fact, that the precept of the law holds him responsi- 
ble ; and the fact, that superadded is the penal claim, 
were distinctly stated. The reasons why it must 
necessarily be so, were also exhibited, at least so far 
as to point out the ruinous consequences of maintain- 
ing, that the precept and the penalty cannot both 
simultaneously hold the subject of law. 

The action of charging upon Adam his sin ; and 
the action whereby its legal consequence is declared, 
next claim our attention ; the former of these is 
called imputation; the latter — condemnation. 

SECTION III. 

OF IMPUT A TION . 

The Hebrew word (^ts^n) for impute, occurs with 
great frequency, and is variously translated. It sig- 
nifies that operation of the mind, whereby we form 
a judgment. It is often difficult to discover and lay 
open this sense; but I think it always includes the 
notion of comparing two things together, and marking 
their agreement or difference: this is the leading idea; 
this operation of the mind is what the Hebrew word 
is designed to express. Hence, it signifies to think. 
Gen. xxxviii. 15; ''And Judah saw her, and thought 
her to be an harlot." Gen. 1. 20: ''But as for you, 
ye thought evil against me, but God meant [thoughtl^ 
it unto good." 1 Sam. i. 13: "Eli thought she had 
been drunken." The word is sometimes translated by 
esteem. Isa. xxix. 17: "Your fruitful field shall be 
esteemed as a forest."- — liii. 3, 4: "He was despised 
and we esteemed him not — we did esteem him smitten 
of God." In all which cases it is not difficult to per- 
10 



110 IMPUTATION. 

ceive the operation of mind, or process of thought to 
which I have alluded. Judah compared in his mind 
the appearance of Tamar, with the idea and dress of 
a harlot, and perceived their agreement. Here the 
judgment was in default, but the process did take 
place, and he was of opinion that they agreed. 
Joseph's brethren compared their distorted ideas of 
his conduct with their conceptions of what he ought 
to be, and they perceived a disagreement, and there- 
fore, connected him with evil: but God, who seeth 
things as they are, thought otherwise. Eli compared 
Hannah's behaviour to a drunken person's, and per- 
ceived an agreement ; he imputed drunkenness to her; 
just as his brethren imputed evil conduct to Joseph, 
and as Judah imputed unchastity to Tamar. So the 
fruitful field of the Israelites should be compared to a 
forest and perceived to agree ; so Jesus appeared as a 
root out of a dry ground; they compared him with 
their ideas of Messiah, and they found a difference ; 
and he was esteemed to be smitten of God. The un- 
believing looked upon the suffering Saviour; they 
compared him with such as are under God's judg- 
ments, and seeing the agreement, they so considered 
him : they imputed to him the character of a male- 
factor. 

There is, therefore, a judgment of the mind in every 
act of imputation. ''To impute," says Dr. Owen, 
''unto us, that vfhich is really ours, antecedently unto 
that imputation^ includes two things in it, 1. An ac- 
knowledgment or judgment, that the thing so imputed 
is really and truly ours, or was. He that imputes 
wisdom or learning unto any man, doth in the first 
place acknowledge him to be wise or learned. 2. A 
dealing with them according unto it, whether it be 
good or evil. So when upon trial a man is acquitted 
because he is found righteous ; first he is judged and 
esteemed righteous, and then dealt with as a righteous 
person, his righteousness is imputed to him." Justi- 
fication, p. 148. 

So of Adam in the case before us. His conduct is 
compared with the law under which he was placed : it 



IMPUTATION. Ill 

is perceived to disagree : unrighteousnesss is seen to 
be in him : and accordingly, he is thought to be — he is 
estee^ned, unrighteous : his unrighteousness or sin is 
imputed to him. 

The term is applied to express the keeping of pecu- 
niary accounts ; wherein there is a debtor and a cre- 
ditor : some things are set down against, and some in 
favour of the person ; these are compared together, 
and as the agreement or excess is, so is the balance a 
debt or a credit. 2 Kings xii. 15, " Moreover, they 
reckoned not with the men into whose hands they de- 
livered the money to be bestowed on the workmen ; 
for they dealt faithfully." And xxii. 7, 'Hhere was 
no reckoning made with them." Here they kept no 
reckoning, no account of receipts and expenditures. 
Lev. xxv. 50, "And he shall reckon with, him that 
bought him, from the year that he was sold to him, 
unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale 
shall be according to the number of years." And 
xxvii. 18, " then the priest shall reckon unto him the 
money, according to the years that remain." He 
shall adjust the account and strike an equitable bal- 
ance. Here again, we have the process of comparing 
the things together, and marking their agreement or 
difference. It is the plain and simple operation 
which a judge performs in the discharge of his official 
duty. He sets down all the items presented against 
the person to be judged; he marks his entire conduct; 
compares it with the law's prescription and declares 
the difference or agreement, and holds him to the 
legal consequences. This process is imputation : and 
the imputation is just, only when these items really 
belong to the individual. Should the judge put down, 
for, or against a man, any thing that was not really 
and truly his, it would be an unjust imputation ; and 
judgment founded upon it would not be according to 
truth. The thing imputed must, as Owen says, be 
"really and truly ours, or i7i us,'' Adam must have 
actually sinned, he must have stood to the law in the 
relation of a sinner, or sin could not be imputed or 
set down against him. But he did eat the fruit and 



112 IMPUTATION. 

his sin is imputed to Mm : and he is held to its just 
consequences. 

You will observe then, that a man's own acts are 
imputed to him, and because they are his own. So 
Lev. xvii. 4, — -'^'^ blood shall be imputed unto that man, 
he hath shed blood.'' If he had not shed it, it would 
not have been set down against him. So the person 
who improperly sacrifices, ^4t shall not be accepted, 
neither shall it be imputed [set down to his benefit] 
to him that ofi*erethit:" Lev. vii. 18. In like man- 
ner Shimei ^^said unto the king. Let not my Lord im- 
pute iniquity to me, neither do thou remember what 
t-iy servant did perversely." 2 Sam. xix. 19. He 
acknowledges his ofience, and it was impossible the 
king should not think that Shimei had committed the 
offence. What did the offender desire ? Simply, that 
the king would not so set it down against him as to 
hold him responsible for it — to fasten upon him the 
just and lawful consequences, the punishment deserv- 
ed. It is perhaps impossible to find a plainer illus- 
tration of the force and meaning of imputation^ than 
we have here. This man had compared his own con- 
duct in cursing David and casting stones, with the 
law, by which he was bound to obey the king, whom 
God and the people had placed over him ; he saw 
the disagreement, and knew the king saw it too ; his 
eye glanced at the just consequences, and to avert 
them, he makes suit to his restored monarch. The 
precise object of his anxious desire, is, that the pun- 
ishment he deserved might not be inflicted — that the 
king would not hold him to the legal and penal re- 
sults of his own acts. To impute a man's iniquity to 
him, is, therefore, nothing more or less, than to set it 
to his account, and to hold him liable to punishment 
for it. Can any man suppose, that Shimei wished the 
king to believe, that he did not curse him and cast 
stones ? Why does he confess it ? The thing is in- 
credible. It was no part of his expectation to make 
the king believe that the offensive acts were not his. 
But now, if the imputation of righteousness means, 
that the righteous acts of one man become the perso- 



IMrUTATION. 113 

nal acts of another man — or if the imputation of one 
man's sin to another means, that the sinful acts of the 
one become the sinful acts of the other, then, the non- 
imputation of Shimei's iniquity must mean, that he 
did not do the acts — that in not imputing them, the 
king should really believe he never did perform them! 
On the contrary, if the imputation of iniquity is sim- 
ply the setting of it down, and the holding of a person 
responsible for its legal consequences — its just punish- 
ment ; so the imputation of righteousness, is, not the 
thinking that the person did the act ; but the setting 
of it to his account, the holding of him liable to its 
legal consequences ; viz. its just reward. Thus '' Phine- 
has stood up and executed judgment: and so the 
plague was stayed : and that was counted \_i77iputed] 
unto him for righteousness." Psa. cvi. 80, 31. God 
viewed the act of Phinehas ; compared it with the 
holy law; found it agreeing therewith; set it down 
to his account : and held him to its just consequences; 
he rewarded him. " The righteousness of the right- 
eous shall be upon him." There are, therefore, as be- 
fore stated from Owen, these two things always in 
the act of imputation, first. The perception and ac- 
counting of the thing imputed as belonging to the 
person to whom it is imputed; and second, The deter- 
mination to give to him the just and legal conse- 
quences of it. The commendable act of administering 
summary justice in the case, is seen, and accounted, 
as belonging to Phinehas. The act of eating the for- 
bidden fruit is seen, and accounted as belonging to 
Adam. This is the first part of imputation. The 
purpose or determination is conceived, to give to 
Phinehas the just and lawful results of his act, a suit- 
able benefit or reward. The purpose of letting the 
just and legal efi*ects of his act fall upon Adam is en- 
tertained — he shall be punished. This is the second 
part of imputation. The absence of either of these 
will destroy the true idea of imputation. To view and 
account any act or thing as belonging to an individ- 
ual, where it is not, is plainly to violate the law of 
truth: and to follow that up with the legal conse- 
10* 



114 CONDEMNATION. 

quences, is plainly to violate justice. To account 
truly an act as belonging to a person, and yet not to 
append to that act its rightful results, is equally to sin 
against the laws of justice : but when both exist, 
when, upon an inspection of the case, it is seen, that 
Adam did the act, it is his; truth is maintained in 
this part of the imputation : and when the purpose is en- 
tertained to let things be connected in fact, which are 
connected in law, viz. the sinful action and its punish- 
ment, justice is upheld. 

Thus far we have considered imputation^ both as to 
the term and the tiling^ in its primary application ; 
that is, its application to individuals and their own 
personal acts. We reserve its application to other 
cases for another chapter. 

SECTION IV. 

OFCONDEMNATION. 

The action of declaring the legal consequences of 
imputing to Adam his own sin is, Condemnation. 

In defining the term Justification, we had occasion 
to see, that it stands in contrast with condemnation. 
The former describes the act of a judge in passing a 
sentence in favour ; the latter the act of passing a 
sentence against a person. Now, before either can 
righteously occur, the operation covered by the term 
imputation^ must take place ; and the parts of it be 
conducted respectively under the auspicious adminis- 
tration of truth and justice. For no man can be 
justly and truly condemned^ until an unlawful act 
shall have been truly charged to him ; until the deter- 
mination be passed, that its legal consequences shall 
be connected with him. The former of these occur- 
red in the case of Shimei : King David charged him 
with the crime. The latter did not take place : for 
the king being sovereign, as well as judge, determin- 
ed not to allow the law here to do its full execution. 
HadAbishai killed Shimei, he would have been guilty 
of murder. The sovereign interposed, and averted 



GUILT. 115 

the sentence of the judge, and, of course, the sword 
of the executioner. The judge did not pass a sen- 
tence of co7idemnation^ and the executioner dared not 
strike the victim of justice. In the case of Adam, 
both parts of imputation occurred : his act is charged 
upon him and the purpose is conceived, and enter- 
tained, of treating him accordingly. Here we have 
the full idea of imputation ; but we have more than 
this. The purpose to let the act be followed by its 
just consequence is also expressed. " Cursed is the 
ground for thy sake — dust thou art and unto dust 
shalt thou return." Now this expression is condem- 
nation. This is the last act of the judge directly 
toward the individual oflfender : it only remains for 
him to turn to the executioner and bid him do his 
duty. 

Such was the unhappy condition of the parent of 
the human race: he had acted contrary to law: the 
judge had compared his conduct with the law, and 
marked their contrariety: he had entertained the 
purpose to deal with him according to his deeds — had 
imputed to him his sin : he had declared this purpose — 
had condemned him. Adam therefore is guilty of 
death. 



SECTION V. 

OF GUILT. 

We must settle the meaning of this term, which is 
the more necessary, because its theological sense is 
different, in some degree, from the sense in which it 
is often understood in common conversation. We use 
it simply to describe the state and condition of a per- 
son who has passed under the law's condemnatory 
sentence. It is generally true, that he is deserving 
of punishment : but this idea is expressed in either 
terms, and guilt implies simply, the person's exposure 
to punishment, because the law has pronounced upon 
him its sentence of condemnation. 

In theological discussions we ought to adhere to 



116 GUILT. 

scripture usage, in the meaning of terms "wliicli are 
used in the Bible : and generally, where words are 
used often in both the Old and New Testaments, the 
usage of the former ought to govern: just as the 
meaning of a word in the English Bible, is never to be 
settled by a reference to English authorities, but to 
the original scriptures. Let us therefore appeal to 
the Old Testament. And here we find the term guilty^ 
used as a translation for a single Hebrew word, but 
seventeen times. One of these occurs in Numbers 
XXXV. 31 : '' Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life 
of a murderer, which is guilty of death ; but he shall 
be surely put to death.'' Here the word rendered 
guilty^ (v^"^) means ill desert, and this is the only 
instance where the word is so translated. In the 
other sixteen cases, the Hebrew word (o^^'^) signifies, 
simply, obligation — or liability to the penal claims 
of law. Of these sixteen, it is used, Lev. iv. 13, 22, 
27, and v. 2, 3, 4, 5, 17, eight times in reference to 
the sins of ignorance, whereby ceremonial guilt is 
contracted. In Lev. vi. 4, it is applied to sins of 
moral turpitude knowingly committed, such as lying, 
deception, false swearing. But a careful inspection 
wdll show, that in every case, the sin and the guilt are 
distinguished from each other. ''If the whole con- 
gregation of Israel sin through ignorance — and are 
guilty.'' "When a ruler hath sinned and done some- 
what through ignorance — and is guilty." ''If any 
one of the common people sin through ignorance — 
and be guilty." Here it is manifest, that the term sin, 
expresses the wrong-doing^ and the term guilty^ ex- 
presses the liahility to penal consequences : and ac- 
cordingly, the law proceeds to affirm the ceremonial 
penalty. In Gen. xlii. 21, Joseph's brethren "said 
one to another, we are verily guilty concerning our 
brother; therefore is this distress come upon us." 
They felt some of the penal evils of their sin, and con- 
fessed their liahility to suffer — their obligation to 
penalty. In Judges xxi. 1, the people had sworn 
" There shall not any of us give his daughter unto 
Benjamin to wife," but relenting afterwards, some of 



GUILT. 117 

their leaders laid the plot to let the Benjamites steal 
their daughters, and should the parents complain, 
they privately assured the Benjamites they would not 
be rigid in holding them to punishment for violating 
their oath — '^we will say unto them — ye did not give 
unto them at this time that ye should be guilty.'' 
That is, that your oath should bind you to its punish- 
ment. Those who had married strange wives, Ezra 
X. 19, "put away their wives and heing guilty'' — ob- 
noxious to penal evil, they offered a suitable atone- 
ment. Prov. XXX. 10, ''Accuse not a servant unto his 
master, lest he curse thee, and thou be found guilty'' 
— liable to suffer. Ezek. xxii. 4. " Thou art become 
guilty in the blood which thou hast shed." 'Here 
again, the wrong-doing is distinguished from the ex- 
posure to penal suffering on account of it. Zech. xi. 
4, 5, ''Thus saith the Lord, my God; feed the flock 
of the slaughter; whose possessors slay them, and 
hold, themselves not guilty:" — not liable to punish- 
ment, because the laws are prostrated and unable to 
execute just vengeance. 

The term occurs once as a noun. Gen. xxvi. 10. 
Abimelech complains, that Isaac's conduct might have 
brought "guiltiness upon us" — exposed us to penal 
evils, as did Abraham's on a former occasion. 

Dr. Owen, after a very clear statement of the case, 
says, " Gruilt in the scripture, is the respect of sin 
unto the sanction of the laWj whereby the sinner be- 
comes obnoxious unto punishment. And to be guilty 
is to be, vTTo^mog too Ss^, liable unto punishment for sin, 
from God, as the supreme law-giver and judge of all." 
Justification, 178. 

On this point, the Princeton Eeview, (Vol. II. 440,) 
quotes Owen, Grotius, Edwards, and Ridgeley, and 
quotations might be greatly extended; but the Bible 
is the best authority. Such is the Bible meaning, 
and ought to be the theological meaning of the term 
guilt. 

In concluding this section let us remark, 

1. God's imputations are according to both truth 
and righteousness. If you sin, "be sure your sin will 



118 IMPUTATION. 

find you out." God will reckon it to you and hold you 
responsible for its legal consequences. Men, indeed, 
may, through want of knowledge, not impute your 
offences to you; or imputing them, may, through 
want of regard to righteousness, refuse or neglect to 
hold you responsible ; but not so God ; '^ Shall not the 
judge of all the earth do right." And if he will im- 
pute iniquity, vfho can stand before him ? 

2. The annunciation, by due authority, of the act 
of imputation, is a condemnatory sentence : and this 
follows the other, in every righteous government, by 
an inevitable moral necessity. It is not a moral pos- 
sibility to withhold the declaration, when the facts 
exist. It would be to connive at sin, and become par- 
taker in its iniquity. Condemnation must therefore 
pass upon every sinner. 

3. How mournful the fact before us — ^the great 
progenitor of the human race, a condemned malefac- 
tor, at the bar of his Maker ! A little time previous- 
ly, high in favour with God, holding familiar inter- 
course with him as a man converseth with his friend ; 
now alas, fallen, degraded, condemned ! How is the 
gold become dim ! How is the most fine gold changed i 

4. Mark, once more, the intimate connexion be- 
tween religion and that moral government which con- 
stitutes civil society. Their principles are identical ; 
their doctrines are the same. A truly religious man, 
who believes the doctrines of the Bible, must necessa- 
rily be a good member of society, a good citizen, a 
patriot, a lover of his country, and of mankind. 

SECTION VI. 

" THE SIN OF ADAM IS RIGHTFULLY IMPUTED TO HIS POSTERITY." 

This language I have borrowed from Stapferus, 
through Edwards, who quotes it with approbation, (vol. 
II. 545 ;) because it accurately expresses the next topic 
of our discussion. To evince its truth, it will be 
necessary to recall and apply some of the first princi- 
ples of morals already settled. We must ever bear 



IMPUTATION. 119 

in mind, tliat our discussion is upon a question of legal 
relations — a question of right. 

And one of the truths most important in this case, 
is, that every moral head, or federal representative, 
binds, by his action, the moral body of which he is 
the head — the persons whom he represents. The 
destinies of the head and body are the same : they 
are a moral unity. Whatever be the number of per- 
sons represented, whether ten, or ten million times 
ten millions, it is the same; the act of the one is the 
act of the whole. I trust we have settled this prin- 
ciple. We have seen, that either it is true, or there 
neither is, nor can be, moral government in the uni- 
verse, nor human society in this world. 

We have also inquired into the matter of fact, and 
found it so to be, that Adam was appointed of God, 
head of the whole human race — a representative, who 
acted for all human persons. There existed a moral 
unity. ''I think," says Edwards ii. 642, "it would 
go far towards directing to the more clear conception 
and right statement of this affair, were we steadily to 
bear this in mind : That God, in every step of his 
proceeding with Adam, in relation to the covenant or 
constitution established with him, looked on his pos- 
terity as being one with him. And though he dealt 
more immediately with Adam, it yet was as the head 
of the whole body, and the root of the whole tree ; and 
in his proceedings with him, he dealt with all the 
branches, as if they had been then existing in their 
root." 

"From which it will follow, that both guilt, or ex- 
posedness to punishment, and also depravity of heart, 
came upon Adam's posterity, just as they came upon 

him — " "I think this will naturally follow on the 

supposition of their being a constituted oneness or 
identity of Adam and his posterity in this affair." 

" The guilt a man has upon his soul at first 

existence, is one and simple, viz: the guilt of the origi- 
nal apostasy, the guilt of the sin by which the species 
first rebelled against God." 

If the fact be so; if Adam did represent, did act 



120 IMPUTATION. 

for his people, then, they acted through him and by 
hinij just as we republicans act through and by our 
representatives in Congress. Consequently, his act 
is as rightfully imputed to us, as it is imputed to him. 
Why is it rightfully imputed to Adam ? Because it 
is his, and in accounting it his, Grod sustains truth : 
and in purposing to deal with him accordingly, and 
holding him responsible for its legal consequences, he 
acts according to justice. Why is it rightly impu- 
ted to his posterity? Because it is theirs; not indeed 
personally, but morally, legally : just as the acts of 
every agent or representative are the acts of his prin- 
ciple, and bind him: — and when God accounts it 
theirs, he sustains truth, and when he holds them to 
the legal consequences, he sustains justice. 

The first words of Edward's treatise on original sin, 
are these : '^By Original Sin, as the phrase has been 
most commonly used by divines, is meant the innate 
sinful depravity of the heart. But yet, when the doc- 
trine of original sin is spoken of, it is vulgarly under- 
stood in that latitude which includes, not only the 
depravity of nature, but the imputation of Adam's 
first sin ; or, in other words, the liableness or exposed- 
ness of Adam's posterity, in the divine judgment, to 
partake of the punishment of that sin. So far as I 
know, most of those who have held one of these, have 
maintained the other; and most of those who have 
opposed one, have opposed the other:" ii. 310. 

This extract gives us the true definition of guilt ; it 
is the liableness or exposedness of Adam's posterity, 
in the divine judgment, to partake of punishment ; 
and the rendering of this sentence, is imputation : 
whereby his posterity is exposed to punishment on 
account of Adam's sin. 

1. Having thus recalled the first principles from 
which the result follows, and presented anew the dis- 
tinct idea of imputation, let us open the sacred volume 
and see, whether cases do exist, wherein the acts of 
one person, are reputed in law, the acts of another — 
are imputed to another, that is, are so accounted to 
another, that he is held responsible in law for them — 



IMPUTATION. 121 

is guilty — is liable to the legal consequences, A few 
cases only may be cited. 

1. The league, covenant or treaty, which Joshua 
made with the ambassadors of the Gibeonites, is a 
case in point ; Joshua ix. Here was a covenant en- 
tered into by the ambassadors on the one hand, and 
by Joshua and the princes of Israel on the other hand. 
But neither of the high contracting parties acted for 
himself, simply. They all felt, that they acted for 
their nations respectively: and, although there was 
deception on one side, yet because the league was con- 
firmed by an oath, it was held to be binding, not upon 
the ambassadors and representatives only, but upon 
the nations whom they represented : and that, even 
though the people of Israel murmured much against 
it. Here is a clear case, wherein the act of one body 
of men passes over and binds another. And why ? 
Simply because it was their act, performed by them 
through their representatives : and thus it is with all 
treaties between nations. 

2. In like manner, in the covenant at Sinai, to 
which we have already had reference, not the persons 
who were present, and they alone were bound by the 
act — but it extended over the nation and bound them 
all, even until the days of Messiah's flesh. Deut. v. 3. 
On the same principle, the sin of David in numbering 
Israel, was a national sin ; it was committed by the 
head of the nation, and the nation was held liable to 
its consequences and suffered grievously. 

3. So the whole business of suretyship, rests on the 
same foundation. A man voluntarily becomes respon- 
sible for his friend; so that in case of his failure, his 
acts in contracting a debt, come upon him as surety, 
he is bound in law to make it good. ''Be not one of 
them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties 
for debts. If thou hast nothing to pay, why should 
he take away the bed from under thee." Prov. xxii. 26. 
Thus, "Jesus was made surety of a better testament," 
(Heb. vii. 22.), and the responsibilities of those, for 
whom he was surety, lay upon him j he was bound^ 
just as his people were bound. 



122 IMPUTATION. 

4. This suggests the instance of Paul, when he 
assumed the debt of Onesimus. Philemon's servant 
had run away from his master, and perhaps purloined 
his goods or money ; he encountered Paul and heard 
the gospel of salvation; it was blessed to him, and 
Onesimus became a good man; Paul sent him back to 
his master, though he had a desire to retain him to 
wait upon himself, '^But without thy mind, would I 
do nothing." In sending back this runaway servant, 
Paul writes to the master, '^If he have wronged thee 
or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account ; I, 
Paul, have written it with mine own hand, I will 
repay it." Philemon xviii. 19. The word translated 
''put that on mine account^''' is the same as found in 
Rom. V. 13, ''sin is not imputed where there is no 
law." " Put that on mine account," charge it, impute 
it to me. 

Here is the principle for which we contend. 
Whether the imputation of it to Paul ever took place, 
we know not; nor is it a matter of any consequence. 
The apostle recognises the correctness of the prin- 
ciple. The acts of Onesimus in becoming indebted, 
pass over as to their legal and binding effects, not as 
to their moral character, this is absurd and impossi- 
ble; but as to their legal obligation. If Philemon 
accepts the surety, and transfers the debt to Paul, 
then is Onesimus set free : if he merely agrees to hold 
Paul responsible, in case Onesimus fail of payment, 
he holds both responsible. The imputation consists, 
precisely, in his holding Paul bound in law to pay the 
debt : and it is only necessary farther to observe, that 
the imputation here, as always, rests upon the pre- 
vious moral union of the persons. Had Philemon, 
without any evidence of Paul's connexion with Onesi- 
mus, put his debt down to Paul's account, it would 
have been an unjust imputation, and he could not have 
vindicated it in law. Hence the particularity with 
which the apostle specifies his signature : this is the 
legal evidence of his consent. 

2. Here we meet an objection against the imputa- 
tion of Adam's sin to his posterity: it is maintained 



IMPUTATION. 123 

by the entire Pelagian interest, that the sons of Adam 
are indeed responsible, and do become guilty of his 
sin, so soon as they, by actual^ personal sin, consent 
to Adam's deed, but not before. Hence the same 
parties deny, that original sin, of itself, condemns any 
one: it does not attach until after actual sin. A 
surety is not bound, they say, until he consents. To 
impute a debt to a man and hold him to payment, 
who has not given his personal consent to it, would be 
unjust; neither would it be just to charge the sin of 
Adam upon his innocent posterity. On this we re- 
mark, 1. To charge sin upon the innocent, would 
indeed be iniquity : but the question in controversy 
is, whether Adam's posterity are innocent ; whether 
they are not justly under condemnation, because of 
his sin; and this question depends, manifestly, upon the 
previous question, whether they acted in, and through 
him ; were they represented by him ? If they were, 
then his act was legally their act ; for he acted for 
them. 2. As to consent being necessary to create a 
moral union ; the principle is sound and true, but it has 
its limits and its exceptions. The consent of every 
individual person in a nation, is not necessary to give 
validity to a treaty or a law, and yet they are all 
bound by it. The consent of Adam was not neces- 
sary, as a pre-requisite to his creation ; or to his being 
placed under the law of God. True, he did con- 
sent to obey Grod; but I deny that the obligation 
is based on the consent: for if consent here was 
the basis of obligation, who shall say that the with- 
drawal of consent, does not put an end to obligation ? 
On the contrary, the obligation to obey God is natu- 
ral and necessary, and can never cease, as we have 
seen, and therefore, Adam could not withhold his con- 
sent without violating his obligation. No man's con- 
sent is now asked, whether he will or will not be bound 
by the laws of God or his country. Every one is so 
bound, whether he consents or not. No man's con- 
sent is asked, whether he will or will not be a son of 
Adam, either in a physical or a moral sense. God has 
made every man so, and it would be no greater absur- 



124 IMPUTATION. 

dity to maintain the dependence of the physical rela- 
tions upon the individual's own consent, than of the 
moral. The infant orphan's consent is not necessary 
to the validity of his guardian's appointment and the 
legality of his acts. We are therefore thrown back 
upon the mere question of fact; did God appoint 
Adam the representative head of his race ? On this 
alone depends the question of the imputation of his 
sin to them. If God did constitute them a moral 
unity, the question is settled : he sinned, and the guilt 
of this sin is imputed : they are held liable to its penal 
consequences, that is, death. 

3. This argument thus far, is what logicians term, a 
priori; an argument from first principles, or princi- 
ples proved to be true, to their results. Having seen 
reasons to believe, that God entered into covenant 
with Adam, in which he appointed him the represen- 
tative head of his posterity, we are thus shut up to 
the belief of the doctrine, that his sin is imputed to 
them; they are liable to its penal consequences. Let 
us now reverse the operation and reason, a posteriori; 
that is, backward, from effects, to their causes ; from 
the ruin in which we find man actually involved, to 
the moral causes of that ruin. And, 

1. There is here a resumption of a truth already re- 
cognized : that human sufferings have their origin in 
human sins ; that all the sorrows that flesh is heir to, 
are consequent upon dereliction of principle ; that 
physical evils are connected with moral evils. The 
mind refuses to believe, that a world of sorrows can be 
disconnected from a world of sins. The belief in a 
wise, holy, just, and good Being, who rules in the 
heavens above, and in the earth beneath ; who regu- 
lates and governs the planets in their ceaseless round, 
and superintends all human affairs, so that a hair 
cannot fall from our head, without his will — the belief 
in such a Being, seems to involve the idea that suffer- 
ing results from sin, ^' Shall not the judge of all the 
earth do right ?" ^^Hath there been evil in the city, 
and the Lord hath not done it?" '' Wilt thou slay the 
righteous with the wicked ?" We set it down then as 



IMPUTATION. 125 

a moral axiom, that pain and anguish, distraction and 
turmoil, sickness and death, can exist under the gov- 
ernment of a benevolent and righteous God, only as 
the just and necessary consequents of moral evil. 

2. But, that such do exist in our own world, is as evi- 
dent, as that the world itself exists. We can no more 
disbelieve the reality of our own being, and that of 
the earth, and the fullness thereof, than we can dis- 
believe the general prevalence of pain, and sickness, 
and death. "Man is born to trouble as the sparks 
fly upward." "Few and evil have been the days of 
the years of my life!" No man needs proof of the 
fact, that earth has its sorrows, deep seated and incu- 
rable by earthly means. 

3. Hence the unavoidable inference, that earth has 
its sins. Man has violated the divine law, and hence 
the evils incident to his condition. These are simply 
a partial expression of God's displeasure against him 
for his transgressions. This is a plain, simple, and 
satisfactory way of accounting for the miseries of our 
own world ; and in this there is a very general agree- 
ment. It seems to commend itself to the common 
sense of all men. The barbarous people of Melita, 
reasoned thus when they saw the venomous beast fas- 
ten on Paul's hand. "No doubt," said they, "this 
man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the 
sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live." This con- 
nexion between suffering and sin, we have seen, is in- 
dispensable in a righteous government. The latter 
must always be antecedent to the former, in point 
of fact. Here, there is no room for discussion, and 
scarcely any for illustration. But again, 

4. Guilt must precede punishment. A man must 
be condemned before he can be rightfully executed : 
the law must pronounce its sentence, before the offi- 
cer can proceed to take vengeance. Consequently, 
in a perfectly righteous government, its execution is 
evidence of the justice of a sentence. Now such a gov- 
ernment is God's. If therefore, men suffer under it, we 
may rest satisfied, that they suffer in consequence of 
just liability to suffer. God does injustice to no man, 

11* 



126 IMPUTATION. 

and therefore we infer, that all men who suffer, are 
sinful, condemned, guilty men. 

These truths are so plain and elementary — these 
reasonings so common place, that we can scarcely 
bear their rehearsal. Who denies, or who is igno- 
rant of them ? Who needs to have them expanded, illus- 
trated, explained, enforced, in order to his reception 
and belief of them ? It is with difficulty I have pre- 
vailed on myself to put them down here, even thus 
briefly : and yet they are momentous truths, and have 
an overpowering influence in the discussion of this 
doctrine. Let the reader look again at them. Are 
they not true ? May he not with perfect safety com- 
mit himself to them ; and abide the results ? 

5. We conclude, that, inasmuch as all men do suf- 
fer, all men were condemned, are guilty, are justly 
liable to suffer. From this conclusion there is no es- 
cape. If, in God's moral government, s^uffering is 
consequent upon guilt, and guilt consequent upon sin, 
then, wherever we find the first, we must believe the 
others to be present, or we must charge God foolish- 
ly. The universal prevalence of pain, sorrow, an- 
guish, and death, proves, either the universal preva- 
lence of sin and guilt : or, that the universal Governor 
is not a regarder of justice. 

To avoid this argument from closing in upon them 
and compelling their admission of the doctrine of ori- 
ginal sin, some reply, that the universality of suffer- 
ing must indeed be referred to sin ; yet to no sin of 
Adam ; but only to the personal sins of men. Each 
man suffers for his own acts, and not at all for any 
participation of his in Adam's first transgression. 

In view of this we admit, it is true, unquestionably, 
that the personal acts of individuals, are sufficient to 
bring condemnation and death upon them. But as to 
all sufferings which precede the personal, sinful acts 
of the individual, this is no explanation whatever. We 
have settled the moral principle, that sin and guilt 
must precede suffering. How then can we account 
for all the pains and sorrows of infancy ? What per- 
sonal acts, bearing a moral character, of the new- 



IMPUTATION. 127 

born, yea, of the unborn babe, are tbere, to account 
for its excruciating agonies? Does moral agency 
commence prior to birth! Or will any man deny 
all connexion between the suffering of infant human- 
ity, and a pre-existent moral cause ? Let us examine 
these in order ; for strange as it may appear, each 
has had its advocates. 

(1.) Unwilling to admit the pre-existent sin of Adam 
and the infant's participation in the act of its repre- 
sentative, as accounting for its agonies, some recent 
speculators have maintained, that infants begin to sin 
personally, before birth, and being actual sinners, 
their sufferings are thus accounted for ! If the posi- 
tion could be maintained, from reason and Scripture, 
it would indeed invalidate our argument from effects 
to causes. Let us look into the Bible, and see whe- 
ther it throws any light upon this question of infants 
sinning before they are born. " When Rebecca also 
had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for 
the children being not yet born, neither having done 
any good or evil, that the purpose of God according 
to election might stand, not of works, but of him that 
calleth) it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the 
younger." Rom. ix. 10 — 12. Here, is, unquestionably, 
a difficult passage for those who maintain the doctrine 
of actual, personal sinning before birth. The child- 
ren (and that just before birth) had done no good or 
evil. It would seem that Paul did not believe in this 
ante-birth actual sin. Moses, (Deut. i. 39,) speaks of 
the children of the Israelites in the wilderness, who, 
" in that day had no knowledge between good and 
evil." Now, that the good and e\dl here, could be 
natural good and evil, is hardly credible, for the new- 
born babe desires the sincere milk, and will reject 
nauseous drugs. Undoubtedly, the common mean- 
ing attached to the words, is the correct one : viz. 
that their little babes could not distinguish moral good 
and evil, right and wrong. Now, if there was no ca- 
pacity to know a right and a wrong in actions, there 
could be no right or wrong actions. Actual sin is 
impossible. 



128 IMPUTATION. 

This is in accordance with the general sense of 
mankind. Infants are not treated as moral agents, 
because they are supposed incapable of discerning 
right and wrong. It is therefore undeniable, that, as 
human persons, they do not and cannot sin, either im- 
mediately after or before birth. If they commit ac- 
tual sin before they see the light, it must be indepen- 
dently of the body, and how far this is different from 
the doctrine of transmigration of souls, I leave its 
friends to explain. Meanwhile, we rest in the confi- 
dence, that no actual sin of the infant exists, prior to 
its suffering, as the moral cause of that suffering. 
This christianized figment of pagan mythology gives 
no substantial aid to the opponents of the doctrine of 
original sin. The facts remain unexplained by it. 
Infants do suffer, therefore they are guilty : sin they 
have upon them. 

(2.) The attempt to account for the sufferings of in- 
fants, by viewing them all as disciplinary only, is equal- 
ly unavailing. The advocates of this allege, that God 
deals with infants as an earthly parent does, when he 
chastises his children. It is to teach them virtue ; to 
induce them to shun vice: a system of discipline. To 
this we reply, that it is a virtual denial of the princi- 
ple already settled, that the sufferings of moral beings, 
must have their cause in sin: or, if it is not a rejec- 
tion of this principle, it makes the effect precede its 
cause. Infants are made to suffer, in the government 
of God, not on account of sin committed, but on ac- 
count of sin to be hereafter committed ; or rather, on 
account of sin, the perpetration of which, is to be pre- 
vented by the suffering. But neither of these is 
practised by any wise and upright parent. What 
father chastises an unoffending child, lest he may 
hereafter offend ? What government punishes the 
innocent, lest they might become guilty ? What 
sound philosopher puts the effect before the cause, and 
makes the effect, effectual in preventing the existence 
of that which caused its own existence ? 

We are thrown back therefore upon the sober fact 
of the case : infants, aM infants, and so, all the eJiildren 



ORIGINAL SIN. 129 

of Adam, without exception, do suffer — many of them, 
intense agonies and death — before they have commit- 
ted, in their own proper persons, any actual sin. If 
the sufferings of moral beings must necessarily be pre- 
ceded by sin, as their moral cause, and if there is no 
actual, personal sin, we are forced back upon original 
sin, as that which creates liability to suffering, and 
affords a satisfactory solution to the difficulties of the 
case. The true and real cause of the sickness, pain, 
and death of infants, is their sin, committed, not by 
themselves, actually and personally, but federatively^ 
in their first father Adam ; who, appointed by his 
Creator for this end, acted for them, and they sinned 
in him and fell with him in his first transgression. 
Thus, we are led back from effects to their causes ; 
just as we were before led from causes to their effects; 
we are irresistibly borne towards the conclusion, that 
the sin of Adam is rightfully imputed to his poste- 
rity. 



CHAPTER IX. 



ON ORIGINAL SIN. — ARGUMENT— AN EXPOSITION OF 
ROMANS V. 12 — 21. 

The reasoning in the preceding chapter, is substan- 
tially borrowed from the Apostle Paul : and I propose 
now, to present a brief exposition of that difficult, and 
very important passage, Rom. v. 12 — 21. 

The general analysis given by Dr. Hodge, is un- 
doubtedly the true one, and it is stated in those lines 
of light which always follow his pen : I therefore quote 
the summary, from his abridged Commentary on 
Romans. 

^'According to this view of the passage, it consists 
of five parts. 



130 ORIGINAL SIN. 

" The first, contained in v. 12, presents the first 
member of the comparison between Christ and Adam, 

^' The second contains the proof of the position 
assumed in the 12th verse, and embraces verses 13, 
14, which are therefore subordinate to v. 12. Adam^ 
therefore^ is a type of Ohrist. 

'' The third, embracing verses 15, 16, 17, is a com- 
mentary on this declaration, by which it is at once 
illustrated and limited. 

" The fourth, in verses 18, 19, resumes and carries 
out the comparison commenced in verse 12. 

" The fifth forms the conclusion of the chapter, and 
contains a statement of the design and effect of the 
law, and of the gospel, suggested by the preceding 
comparison, verses 20, 21." 

1. A comparison is instituted between Adam and 
Christ, in regard to their legal relations^ and not to 
their personal, moral qualities. This comparison is 
begun in verse 12, wherein it is affirmed, (1.) that sin 
entered through Adam upon the world, (2) that through 
sin, death entered, and (3) thus death passed upon all 
men, through him in whom all sinned. Now, it is in 
reference to this last, that the parenthesis occurs. 
That part of the comparison, which affirms the points 
of resemblance in Christ's legal relations, to those of 
Adam, is postponed, until proof is off*ered of the posi- 
tion, ''in whom all sinned:" then it is resumed and 
the comparison completed.* 

* The point which I desire to establish by a critical examination, 
is, that gcf)' ^i can be here correctly translated only, in whom. For, 
although it be true as Dr. Hodge remarks, that, "it is not necessary, 
in order to defend this interpretation, to adopt the rendering in 
whom;''^ yet if it can be shown, that there are insuperable philologi- 
cal objections to the common reading, for that, or because that^ the 
other rendering, in whom, because it will certainly strengthen and 
illustrate the doctrine for which we contend, ought to be adopted. 
Let us therefore endeavour to make this clear. And (1) the verb, 
Smx^iv, translated passed, always requires a case expressed or implied, 
for the preposition, in composition, to govern : passed through — 
through what? My affirmation is, that the sentence is always imper- 
fect, until a case is supplied ; the grammatical construction indispen- 
sably requires it. This compound verb occurs (see Schmidius) forty- 
three times in the New Testament, and any one who will take the 
trouble to examine the whole, will be convinced of the truth of the 
foregoing affirmation. Let us inspect a few of the passages, in the 



ROMANS V. 12 — 21. 131 

2. This translation gives the literal and true mean- 
ing of the language, '' death passed through the one in 
whom all sinned." The affirmation of all sinning in 
Adam, is proved inverses 13 and 14. The first point 
he takes toward the proof, is the fact, that sin was in 
the world before the Mosaic law ; men sinned up to 
the time of the Sinai covenant; until the law. 

(2) The existence of sin, proves the existence of a 
law ; for sin is not imputed ; men cannot be held pun- 
order of their occurrence. Matt. xii. 43, and Luke xi. 24. ** the un- 
clean spirit walketh through dry places,^'' Matt. xix. 24, and Mark x. 
25, " it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." In 
both instances the preposition, including the word //a, through^ is 
repeated after it. Mark iv. 35, and Luke viii. 22. " Let us pass over 
unto the other side." .Let us pass through [the lake or sea.] Here 
the governed case is understood, Luke ii. 15. "Let us now go over 
unto Bethlehem" — Let us pass through [the country or villages — as 
Acts ix. 32. Peter passed through all parts,] Luke ii. 35. '* a sword 
shall pierce through thine own soul also." Here is the accusative 
without the preposition repeated. Luke iv. 30. and John viii. 49, 
" passing through the midst." Luke v. 15. " So much the more went 
there a fame abroad" — did the fame pass through [all parts.] Luke 
ix. 6. " and went through the towns," and v. 17, and John iv. 4. — he 
passed through the midst of Samaria — Luke xix. 1. "And Jesus 
passed through Jericho" — and v. 4. " he was to pass that way — 
through that place." In Acts the word occurs twenty-one times: in 
eleven of these, viz; ix. 32 — xii. 10 — xiii. 6 — xiv. 24 — xv. 3 — 41 — xvi. 
6 — xviii. 23 — xix. 1.21 — xx. 2, the case governed, is expressed without 
a repetition of the preposition, and is always the accusative: except ix. 
32, where the preposition is repeated with the genitive : it is never 
repeated with the accusative. In the remaining ten, viz : viii. 4, 
40— ix. 38— x. 38— xi. 19, 22— xiii. 14— xvii. 23— xviii. 27— xx. 25, 
the cases are not expressed, but the sentences are elliptical and can 
easily be filled up. Ex. gr. (case 1) — " they that were scattered abroad 
went every where [through all parts] (2) " Philip — passing through 
[all parts] — preached in all the cities," — (3) " desiring him that he 
would not delay to come to them," [to pass through the intervening 
regions,] (4) " who went about, [passed through the country] doing 
good" — (5) "went as far as to Phenice" — passed through the country 
to Phenice. And thus it is in every instance : there is an ellipsis 
which must be filled up to complete the grammatical construction 
and the meaning. For your more thorough satisfaction, I add the 
remaining instances in the New Testament, 1 Cor. x. 1 — xvi. 5 — 
2 Cor. i. 16 — Heb. iv. 14. Convinced I am, that no Greek scholar 
can inspect them, without passing through to the conclusion, that the 
medium through which he passes must always be supplied, to com- 
plete the sense and the grammar of the text. 

(2) This point established, our next inquiry is, after the object of 
the compound verb — or rather, the medium or way through which the 
thing passes. For you must have observed, there always is a medium, 



132 ORIGINAL SIN. 

ishable for sin, wlio have had no knowledge of a law, 
for ^' sin is the transgression of the law." (3) Yet 
from Adam to Moses, during a space of twenty-five 
centuries, death swayed his iron, but righteous scep- 
tre, over the entire race of Adam. But death has no 
power to destroy, except as he derives his power from 
the law ; because the law exists for the protection of 
innocence and for the punishment of guilt. Seeing 
therefore, that the punishment was rightfully inflicted, 
it is undeniable that sin was imputed, and the sinner 

it is through something — through dry places — through the eye of a 
needle^ through [the sea] through [the country] — through thine own 
soul — through the midst— through all parts — And thus, in every 
instance of the forty-three, there is a medium through which the 
passage is made. VVhat is it ? Let the text answer. " Wherefore 
as SI hlc dv^pJofrcu^ through one man, sin, iicr'Ux^i, passed in Itc upon the 
world, and Sia, through sin death [passed in upon the world,] and thus 
hCi upon all men, [the world] death Mh^&v, passed through [the one] 
£<p' CO in whom all sinned." 

That there is an ellipsis of cf/aroD Ivlg, through the one, is manifest from 
the 17th verse, where it is affirmed, that death reigned through the 
one^ Sia rov hog, which is the identical idea expressed here. The phrase, 
upon all men death passed in through the one, is equivalent to the 
phrase, " by one's offence, death reigned through the one." The 
ellipsis in the 12th verse, of these words through the one, occurs 
simply because the writer had mentioned, in the two preceding lines, 
that sin entered through the one man and death through sin. To 
avoid tautology, he omits, as unnecessary, the writing of the ha a 
fourth time in the same sentence. 

3. Our next examination is into the scriptural meaning of the 
words gc^' w, translated /or that. The position maintained is, that it is 
here correctly translated only by the words in whom, or in which — by 
whom or which. And let us pursue the same mode — let us refer to 
all the instances wherein the words occur in the New Testament. 

(1) Matt. xxvi. 50, *' And Jesus said unto him. Friend s<^' Z where- 
fore art thou come ?" But the reading which many prefer, with 
Griesbach, scp' o, the accusative neuter, which is correctly rendered 
on account of what, is doubtless the genuine and true reading, Friend, 
for what — on account of what, art thou come ? This must therefore 
be dismissed as not affording really an example. (2) Mark ii. 4, and 
Luke v. 25 — *' they let down the bed, \<p^ cc, wherein, in which, he lay" 
— " he took up that whereon, gcf)' o, in which, he lay." Here, it cannot, 
with any tolerable sense, be translated as a casual particle — for, or 
because. And we see in the latter case, just as in Rom. v. 12, the 
antecedent is to be supplied : it is not expressed in the text — he took 
up [the bed] in which he had lain — death passed through [the one] in 
whom all sinned. 

(3) Philip iii. 12, — ''that I may apprehend that /or which, gcf)' Z,in 
which also I am apprehended of Christ." Here again the antecedent 



ROMANS V. 12—21. 133 

held to be guilty before the law. But how does this 
prove that all men sinned in Adam ? If they, in and 
by their own personal acts, sinned, must it not be im- 
puted, and must they not die ? Can the fact of death 
therefore, prove any thing but simply, that the soul 
which died, had itself sinned, personally? (4) But 
death exercised his kingly power, by right of law, 
over some — over multitudes who never had sinned in 
and by their own proper, personal acts, like Adam. 
He was created in full maturity of mental and of bodily 
powers, and the law was given to him, and he wilfully 
transgressed it. But now, vast multitudes have died, 
who never had matured powers, and a clear knowledge 
of the law. All the infants that perished in the flood, 
and all that have been cut off by disease and by vio- 
lence, before and since, were not like Adam in this 
respect, and could not therefore, sin after the simili- 
tude of his transgression. How then did they sin ? 
For, that sin was imputed to them ; that they were 

to Z is omitted elliptically, and must be supplied to fill up the gram- 
mar and the sense. 

(4) Phil. iv. 10. — Wherein, g<;)' C:, in which jq were also careful. 

(5) 2 Cor. V. 4. *' we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being 
burdened ; not /or that we would be unclothed, &c." For that, is here 
the translation of \<p* w. But if you substitute the literal rendering, 
by which, you will both improve the doctrine and state the meaning. 
We groan, being burdened, by or in which [groaning] we do not 
wish to be unclothed — our groaning is not to be considered as ex- 
pressing a restive discontent and wishing for death. 

(6) Tliere is another case very similar to Phil. iv. 10, in Luke xi. 
22. where the same preposition is connected with the feminine rela- 
tive. "But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and 
overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein g<f)' ?} in 
which he trusted." 

Thus this form of expression cannot possibly be considered as a 
casual particle, in three of the five cases in which it occurs. It is 
not all necessary to consider it so, in any one instance. The plain 
and obvious translation — that which the rules of grammar and the 
drill of the apostle's reasoning both require, is, in whom, and I can 
see no good reason why we should abandon it, simply because it is 
excepted against by the enemies of evangelical doctrine, though we 
ought never to build any important doctrine upon a mere verbal criti- 
cism : nor do I propose it here. What I insist on, is simply that, 
inasmuch as sound criticism and the current of the apostle's reason- 
ing, conspire to establish that translation which makes the truth 
most clearly manifest, we are bound in faithfulness to the text to 
receive and defend it. 

12 



134 ORIGINAL sm. 

guilty ; that they were held liable to ptmishment, is 
undeniably evident from the awful fact, that they did 
suffer death. Death is the wages of sin, and they 
received them. They were therefore due in justice. 
On account of what sin ? Personal sin ? This is 
impossible, for there was nor could be none. Nay, 
but on account of their sin in Adam, ''who is the type 
of him that was to come." Thus briefly, but forcibly 
and clearly, does the apostle close up the argument 
for the truth, that all sinned in Adam. 

In concluding it, however, he intimates a simila- 
rity between Adam and him that was to come, i. e. 
Christ, as to certain points. A type is sl likeness^ pat- 
terrij example^ prepared by sculpture^ draiving^ im- 
pression^ with a view to be imitated afterwards. '' See 
that thou make all things according to the pattern^ 
type^ showed thee in the mount." Heb. viii. 5. This 
example gives the true meaning of the word, and ac- 
cordingly it is used to describe the resemblance, in 
the hands and feet of the Saviour, to the instruments 
by which he was fastened to the wood, "the print^ 
typcj of the nails." "Ye took up the tabernacle of 
Moloch, and the star of your God Remphan, figures^ 
types^ which ye made to worship." Acts vii. 43. 
" These things were our examples^ typesJ' 1. Cor. x. 
6, and v. 11, "All those things happened to them for 
examples; types; and they are written for our admo- 
nition." And six other times it is used in the New 
Testament in the same sense. Christ and Adam then 
are alike; the latter was a type^ an example^ a pat- 
tern^ a prints a figure^ of the former. 

3. But it is obvious that there may be points of re- 
semblance, and yet other points of dissimilarity exist 
also. Our printing types, and the letters form ed by them, 
are alike, and yet very unlike. What are the points of 
likeness intended between Christ and Adam, and what 
are the unlike points? Personal, moral character, is 
surely not intended: but legal relations. They both 
stand as covenant representative heads to distinct 
bodies of men, whose destiny is affected by their con- 
duct, respectively. And, as similar objects may have 



ROMANS V. 12 — 21. 135 

their points of resemblance made more prominent and 
striking, by bringing into view the points of differ- 
ence, the Apostle suspends still farther the compari- 
son begun in the 12th verse, that he may draw this 
contrast. ^' This he does," says Dr. Hodge, '' prin- 
cipally by showing In verses 15, 16, 17, the particu- 
lars in which the comparison does not hold." 

Verse 15. " But not as the offence, so also Is the 
free gift." The offence is Adam's sin imputed; the 
free gift Is Christ's righteousness imputed: and these 
are opposites. Now, if by the offence of the one, 
[Adam] the many [all, v. 18] died, much more the 
grace of God and the gift [of righteousness, v. 17] by 
grace, which is, or belongs, to the one man,. Christ 
Jesus, abounded unto the many [the all of v. 18.] By 
the sin of Adam, the manv died. Not that Adam 
occasioned their death, but he caused it: not as David 
occasioned the death of Ahimelech and the priests, but 
as Saul and J) oQg caused ih-Qiv death. 1 Sam. xxii. 18, 
&c. By the grace of Christ, which includes the be- 
stowment of all his merits, consisting of his entire acts 
of obedience and his sufferings — the many live ; hl3 
grace abounds through righteousness unto eternal 
life. There is here a point of resemblance ; viz. In 
the federative or representative principle Involved m 
both. There is also a point of contrast; viz. the ac- 
tion of the one Is to death; of the other, to life. 
Hence, the emphasis of the sentence lies on the much 
more. If one bad act, brought death upon all repre- 
sented in it; much more, shall innumerable good acts, 
bring life to all represented in them. 

Verse 16, contains another point of contrast; viz. 
Not as [the offence] through the one sinning, [so is] 
the gift. For the judgment was from one [offence] to 
condemnation. By Adam's one sin, as the just and 
efficacious procuring cause, a sentence of condemna- 
tion {ytxT»Kpifj.a) was brought upon all his people. But 
on the contrary, "the free gift," which was secured 
by Christ's entire life, consisting of innumerable acts 
of obedience and of all his sufferings, delivered his 
people '^'from many offences," and secures to them 



136 ORIGINAL sm. 

"a sentence of justification." (J*xa*a;/^a.) Here, it is 
to our purpose to remark particularly, the condemna- 
tion is from one offence, that is, Adam's first sin. 
Language cannot express the thought more definitely. 
He does not say, the one offence of Adam opened the 
way for many offences to follow in his people, and for 
those many offences — -their personal sins— the con- 
demnation comes. His language absolutely excludes 
this. He says, (eI hl^) from the one, is the judgment 
to condemnation. No other sin is necessary to bring 
the sentence of condemnation upon men— no volun- 
tary act of theirs, as an evidence of their consent- — 
nothing but the one offence is concerned in it. The 
first and main idea of original sin is the guilt of 
Adam's first sin ; in other words, his posterity, by 
reason of his sin, are under condemnation^ and conse- 
quently liable to suffer all that sin deserves. 

Verse 17, is an enlargement of verse 16, with an 
additional illustration personifying death, borrowed 
from verse 14, For, if by the transgression of the 
one, [Adam] death obtained a rightful dominion, 
through the one, [^ta ra l^/o?] and exercises it [l^oLa-iT^iva-iy 
has reigned and is reigning as king,] ; much more 
they which receive abundance of grace, and of the 
gift of righteousness, shall reign in life through the 
one, Jesus Christ. If the king of terrors received by 
the one transgression of Adam, his iron sceptre, for 
the destruction of men; much more shall the justified 
in Christ, live and reign with him. ^'As it was by 
one man, antecedently to any concurrence of our own, 
that we were brought into a state of condemnation, 
so it is by one man, without any merit of our own, 
that we are delivered from this state. If the one 
event has happened, much more may we expect the 
other to occur. If we are thus involved in the con- 
demnation of sin, in which we had no personal concern, 
much more, shall we, who voluntary receive the gift 
of righteousness, be not only saved from the conse- 
quences of the fall, but be made partakers of eternal 
life." Hodge on Rom. p. 127. 

Thus, in verses 13 and 14, is proved the truth of 



ROMANS V. 12—21. 137 

the affirmation in the close of verse 12, that all sin- 
ned in Adam. Thus, in verses 15, 16, 17, is proved 
the truth of the affirmation in the close of verse 14, 
that Adam was a type of Christ. Having proved the 
truth of his whole branch of comparison, viz : that 
sin and death passed upon all men, through him in 
whom all sinned, he proceeds in verse 18, to complete 
the comparison. 

4. ^^In very deed, therefore, as though one's offence, 
[transgression] it [sentence] came upon all unto 
condemnation: so also through one's righteousness 
[5tKaia;^aTo?, justification, vcrse 16. £k okKcc\oj^x, a sen- 
tence declaring the person righteous] [it] the free gift^ 
came upon all men, unto justification [li>tai^£ru, justi- 
fying, the process of judging] of life." 

^' Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the 
righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men 
unto justification of life." As we are all condemned, 
through the righteousness of Adam, even so vf e are all 
justified through the righteousness of Christ. Con- 
demnation is by Adam : justification by Christ. Death 
by Adam : life by Christ. Here, we again remark, 
is the essence of our doctrine of original sin; viz: 
^wz7^— -liability to penal evil. 

But you see, the matter of the comparison is really 
a contrast; the resemblance is the manner. As by 
the offence — even so by the righteousness. It is the 
same in 1 Cor. xv. 22. " For as in Adam all die, 
EVEN so in Christ, shall all be made alive." The pre- 
cise point of resemblance, or likeness, or type, as in 
verse 14, lies in the manner of becoming condemned, 
on the one hand, and justified on the other — of dying 
by Adam, and being made alive by Christ. The man- 
ner^ it is affirmed, is the same in both cases. And to 
perceive the resemblance, we must inquire how — in 
what manner did all become involved in condemnation 
and death by Adam ? In what manner are all secure 
of justification and life by Christ? The answer here 
is obvious enough, from the doctrine of federal repre- 
sentation, and the consequent imputation of the guilt 
12^ 



138 ORIGINAL SIN. 

of the representer to the represented. How did all 
come under condemnation, and thus die in Adam ? In 
what manner ? On what principle ? In this way. 
He represented, or acted for them, in the covenant of 
works ; consequently, his act in sinning, was imputed 
to them ; they were held liable to punishment for it, 
and thus died in him. How do all men come under 
justification, and thus become alive in Christ? In what 
manner ? On what principle ? Exactly in the same 
manner. He represented them, or acted for them, in 
the covenant of grace ; consequently, his act in obey- 
ing, was imputed to them ; they were held liable to 
reward for it, and thus live in him. 

Thus, all whom Adam represented were condemned 
and died in him. Dr. Hodge, in his incomparable 
comment on this passage, gives us the essence of the 
whole in three lines: '^Paul's doctrine, therefore, is, 
' As on account of the offence of Adam, all connected 
with him are condemned ; so on account of the right- 
eousness of Christ, all connected with him have the 
justification of life.' " 

This same reasoning applies to the comparison of the 
verse 19, where it is affirmed, that by the disobedience 
of the one man [Adam] the many were made sinners, 
and that, " by the obedience of the one [Christ] the 
many shall be made righteous." It is not affirmed, that 
the many were put by Adam's act into such a state, that 
so soon as they would act for themselves, they would 
be sinners; nor, that the many were put into such a 
state by Christ's acts and sufferings, that so soon as 
they would act, they would be righteous. The lan- 
guage is positive, and cannot be made to express such 
a meaning. By Adam's act, his people became sin- 
ners in the eye of the law and were by it held liable 
to suffer. By Christ's acts, his people became right- 
eous in the eye of the law, and are by it held liable to 
happiness. And in both cases, the meaning i^ pre- 
cisely the same : it is by their sustaining to their re- 
spective federal representatives the relations consti- 
tuted by the covenants entered into by God, with the 
first and the second Adams, respectively. 



ROMANS V. 12—21. 139 

5. The fifth division of the context, includes verses 
20, 21, and seems to have some specific purpose, though 
brought in incidentally, as it were, in connexion with 
the expansion and final statement of the comparison. 

The specific, yet apijarently incidental purpose, is, 
to anticipate and foreclose the objection of the Jew, 
who still entertained the idea, that the Mosaic law must 
have some essential agency in the sinner's justification. 
Whereas, the Apostle runs entirely beyond the days 
of Moses, and comes down to a period after his law 
ceases. What, then, the Jew asks, is the use of the 
law? If justification has no intimate connexion and 
no dependence on the law of Moses, '^ wherefore, then, 
serveth the law?" The law here, is manifestly not the 
moral law, as it is set forth in many parts of Moses' 
writings ; nor the gospel truths also exhibited in the 
same ; but all that which became of binding obligation, 
because it is revealed by Moses. That is, all the posi- 
tive rules, commanding as duties, things which were 
not obligatory as duties before. The moral law, and 
gospel promises existed prior to the Sinai institutions, 
and really form no peculiar part of them. If there- 
fore, reasons the Jew, justification and salvation took 
plaX3e, as has been proved, before and after the law of 
Moses, and consequently, independently on it, "Vv^here- 
fore then serveth the law?" Paul answers this ques- 
tion. Gal. iii. 19. '' It was added, because of trans- 
gression." So here, ^'the law entered," it ^'was su- 
perinduced on a plan already laid," for this precise 
end, to increase upon the minds of the Israelites, a 
sense of the great evil of sin, by exposing them to a 
vast variety, and number of dangers to sin. Trans- 
gressions are multiplied to them, and ceremonial pu- 
rifications are perpetually required for these multiplied 
transgressions, and thus there is kept up a constant 
remembrance of their sinfulness ; and thus the law of 
Moses was a schoolmaster to lead these children to 
Christ. It had this important bearing upon the in- 
terests of salvation, that its yoke of bondage on their 
neck, made them feel the necessity of Christ's free- 



140 ORIGINAL SIN. 

dom; and its ceremonial purifications directed them 
to Him. 

Thus, the practical efi'ect of the Mosaic law is, to 
multiply transgression, and therefore sin abounded : 
but another effect is to turn the mind, in multiplied 
proportion, to the source of pardon ; and so grace did 
far more abound and overflo^Y. 

Haying thus foreclosed the Jew's objection, the 
Apostle returns upon the general comparison, and re- 
suming his beautiful trope, represents sin as a mon- 
ster king, endued with legal power, and exercising it in 
and by his prime minister death. He had in verse 
14, represented death as the king who reigned over 
all men ; now he enthrones sin, which is the cause of 
death — to which death is only ministerial ; for the 
power to hurt, the sting of death is sin. It is sin, 
therefore, that acts the part of a king, and death fol- 
lows in his train. 

But grace too is enthroned; she sits a queen and 
exercises her sovereign power with an heavenly benig- 
nity. Majesty attends her steps ; righteousness and 
truth go before her; not an act of her's sacrifices the 
interests of either ; neither of them is crushed beneath 
her triumphal car, nor are they dragged in servile 
chains at her chariot wheels ; they go before her as 
heralds of the coming joy; they tell of a fulfilled law, 
of an exhausted curse, of a hell extinguished in the 
blood of Calvary, of a heaven lighted up by the life 
of Jesus. 

By way of application then, we would invite the de- 
graded, lost, and ruined subjects of the King of Ter- 
rors, to come and bow before the majesty of our 
Queen. In Her hand is the golden sceptre, which if a 
man but touch, with the outstretched and trembling 
hand of faith, he shall live forever. ^^He that liveth 
and belie veth in me shall never die." 

2. Who can but admire the profound simplicity of 
the apostle's reasoning. This is one of those splen- 
did passages, which, whenever his attention can be 
arrested to the meaning of the language, compels the 



ROMANS V. 12—21. 141 

learned infidel to admire the power of Paul's logic, 
though he may despise the purity of his doctrine. We 
have here a splendid exemplification of the argument 
from effects to their causes. We see also, how much 
the power of argument depends upon the mind's capa- 
city to trace resemblances. 

3. Where men enjoy the gospel and its ordinances, 
the presumptions and probabilities are all favourable 
to them, and tend to encourage diligence in the use 
of means. How much more abundant the grace of 
Christ, than the ruin of Adam ! If dissimilar things 
may be compared in quantity, how much more of merit 
is there in the obedience of Christ, than of demerit in 
the disobedience of Adam ! Hence the certainty of 
death by the one enhances, to every one that believes 
in him, the certainty of life by the other. 

4. It does not, however, follow, that all men are or 
will be saved ; but only that all whom Christ repre- 
sented; just as all whom Adam represented die in 
him. 

5. Who they are whom Christ represented, can be 
ascertained to us, only by the evidences of true con- 
version. Christ represented all that will ever reach 
eternal happiness — all that will ever be qualified for 
its enjoyment — all good and true believers in all ages 
of the world, and to the end of time — all that immense 
multitude which no man can number, who shall sing 
the song of Moses and the Lamb. That we may be 
found among that countless throng, let us labour and 
pray, and suffer with him, so shall we be glorified to- 
gether. 



142 



CHAPTER X, 



ORIGINAL SIN — PROVED PROM THE SALVATION OF 
THOSE THAT DIE IN INFANCY. 

The limits of legitimate inquiry, it is of some im- 
portance to know. And it is not a little difficult to 
determine, in many cases, where they lie. Owing to 
this difficulty, and the consequent uncertainty as to 
the limits of attainable knowledge, much labour, no 
doubt, has been spent in vainly attempting to pass 
beyond the barriers which divine wisdom has erected. 
'^ Secret things," it is admitted, ^'belong unto the 
Lord our God, but those things which are revealed, 
belong unto us, and to our children;" let us therefore, 
in our inquiries into the condition of these immense 
multitudes of our race, who die in infancy, be pecu- 
liarly cautious not to overstep the boundaries of pru- 
dence and revealed wisdom. 

In the preceding chapter, I have developed the ar- 
gument for the doctrine of original sin, from the fact 
of infants' sufferings : now, I propose to deduce an- 
other from the fact of their ultimate salvation. In its 
prosecution, a number of distinct remarks will be 
necessary. 

SECTION L 

INFANTS ARE SAVED. 

It is not inconsistent with any doctrine of the Bible, 
that the souls of deceased infants go to heaven : and 
yet, it is a doctrine taught only by implication, and 
learned only by inference. There is no direct and 
express declaration of scripture to this amount. The 
Saviour declares [Math, xviii. 3, &c.] "Except ye be 



SALVATION OF INFANTS. 143 

converted and become as little children, ye shall not 

enter into the kingdom of heaven But whoso shall 

oflfend one of these little ones which believe in me, 
&c." From the third verse, we would incline to be- 
lieve, that infants, prior to moral agency and before 
actual sin, were intended ; but the sixth verse seems 
to exclude that thought; for they are such as are 
capable of exercising faith in Christ. And no doubt, 
it is the simplicity of their belief that constitutes the 
point of the comparison. " Except ye be converted 
and become as little children," whose leading charac- 
teristic is, to believe their parents with a simple and 
unwavering confidence, "ye cannot be saved." The 
persons spoken of, are little ones, yet so matured as 
to believe in Jesus : this context therefore, says no- 
thing on the question of infants who die prior to moral 
agency. 

The case [Math. xix. 14,] is not more explicit : 
*^ Sufi'er little children, and forbid them not, to come 
unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." The 
kingdom of heaven here, is beyond question the visible 
kingdom ; the church of God. The Master does not 
say the church, or kingdom consists of them ; but only, 
that it is theirs, it belongs to them ; [to^ovtuv sVrtv] 
they have a right of possession in it. The question 
cannot be reasonably raised here, as to their moral 
character, but only as to their legal or ecclesiastical 
rights. Under the old dispensation, they w^ere recog- 
nised as belonging to the church ; and her spiritual 
care was extended over them. The disciples seem 
not to have comprehended the genius of the new" dis- 
pensation here, as in other things, and were for keep- 
ing back the little children ; but the Lord asserts 
their rights, and encourages their approach. 

The .only thing in this context, that would seem to 
constitute a basis for the inference, that infants are 
saved, is the fact of his laying his hands on them, and 
blessing them. There is however, no ground to infer 
any thing in reference to those that die in infancy, 
for this is manifestly not the class of infants present- 
ed in the context. 



144 ORIGINAL SIN. 

In Rev. xi. I85 the prophet speaks of "them that 
fear thy name, small and great ;" and in xix. 5, he 
exclaims, ''Praise our God, all ye his servants, and 
ye that fear him, both small and great;" and in xx. 
12, he avers, that he " saw the dead, small and great, 
stand before God ; and the books were opened/' The 
first passage may possibly relate to the same event as 
the last, viz. the process of judgment; but the second 
refers to the glories of the millenial morning ; and I 
doubt very much, whether the small and great has 
any reference whatever to infancy and manhood; 
rather does it refer to the state and condition of men 
in society in this life. Princes and nobles, as well as 
the humblest of the race, are called upon to bow be- 
fore the Lord, and to give in their account to our Re- 
deemer. If this be the true view, then, these passages 
say nothing on the condition of those who die before 
moral agency. Nor can I find any other passage in 
the sacred volume that speaks explicitly. God indeed 
does promise to every believer to be a God unto him, 
and to his seed after him. This may include the chil- 
dren that die in infancy ; but it certainly does include 
those who grow up to man's estate. 

On what ground then, do we rest our faith, that our 
little ones, who are removed, are taken to God ? How 
do we know, that these tender scions are transplanted 
into the paradise of God on high ? The only true 
answer is, that we do not know it positively to be so. 
It is only a high presumption — an opinion rather than 
an article of faith. There is nothing in the thought 
opposed to the general drift of scripture doctrines : 
but on the contrary, it is agreeable to the general 
spirit of the gospel, and the particular passages above 
cited : and moreover it is very agreeable to the feel- 
ings of afilicted parents. 

If these things be so, it might repay for the trou- 
ble, to inquire, why such studied silence seems to per- 
vade the sacred volumes ? Why is no express men- 
tion made of the salvation of infants ? Has God no 
wise design in it ? Has he not given sufficient encou- 
ragement to the faith of true Christians to sustain and 



SALVATION OF INFANTS. 145 

comfort them in sorrow; whilst he has withheld from 
the unbelieving all the comforts of faith? To me this 
appears to be the state of the case. From the pro- 
mises of the gospel, and our compliance with God's 
requirement to dedicate our infant offspring to Him, 
we who believe, have sufficient ground of encourage- 
ment ; whilst to those who despise his grace, and re- 
ject his ordinances, there is no consolation minis- 
tered. Thus in the silence of scripture, there is 
wisdom. Rebellious men, on the one hand, are not 
allowed to eat the fruit of the tree of life ; whilst on 
the other, no flaming sword repels the children of the 
covenant. Besides, our opinions are utterly unavail- 
ing to the dying infant ; he is beyond any agency of 
ours, but that of prayer, and to this, there is pro- 
mise. 

; As to, the opinion, that all who die in infancy, both 
children of believers and unbelievers. Christians and 
pagans, go to happiness and heaven, it may be harm- 
lessly entertained : it may however operate an evil 
influence upon the minds of unbelieving and wicked 
parents; and that it does so operate, I have not the 
least doubt. Tell wicked, graceless and profligate 
parents, who despise Jesus and his religion, that their 
dead infant is gone to happiness, and you encourage 
them to continue in unbelief; for they can, and do 
see, that this is all you could say to the most pious, 
devoted and prayerful believers, concerning their off- 
spring. You thus put no difference as to comfort in 
existing circumstances, between the precious and the 
vile, and encourage a continuance in the wickedness 
and crime of despising gospel ordinances. "Whilst, 
therefore, I have no objection to the opinion, that all 
who die in infancy, go to happiness, yet I must think, 
that in reference to the infants of unbelievers, it is 
mere opinion ; and not a doctrine taught expressly, or 
by fair implication, in the word of God ; and that, 
although it is in all probability an opinion according to 
truth, still, not having a divine warrant for it, and it 
being of evil tendency, we are not warranted in its 
unqualified assertion before an unbelieving world* 
13 



146 INFANT SALVATION. 

For our purposes, and it appears to me, for all the 
benevolent purposes of the gospel, it is sufficient to 
affirm, concerning the deceased infants of believing 
parents, that they are gone to glory. 



SECTION II. 

INFANTS ATTAIN ETERNAL HAPPINESS THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD; 
ARE SAVED AND INDEBTED TO JESUS FOR THEIR SALVATION. 

1. In proof of this position, I adduce the case quo- 
ted above, where Jesus commands, ^' suffer little chil- 
dren, and forbid them not, to come unto me;" and 
where all, both small and great are commanded to 
praise our Grod. True, I have set these aside, as 
proof texts in the case, and I adduce them only as a 
bar to those who may feel disposed to demur at my 
interpretation. If they insist, that these texts are ap- 
plicable to the souls of dead infants, then I insist, that 
they are pertinent proofs that such are saved through 
Christ. 

2. In the account given of the final judgment, 
Matt. XXV. the immense throng are divided into two 
parts, and into tivo only. In one or the other of these 
two, every individual of the human race is included : 
no third party or portion is ever mentioned : they are 
the sheep and the goats; the righteous and the wicked; 
the children of God^ and the children of the wicked 
one; the elect and the reprobate. There are then, but 
two classes, and consequently, one of these classes in- 
cludes the happy souls of those who die in infancy. 
But this immense throng, on the right hand, are the 
same as the multitude mentioned in Revelations 
vii. chapter, which no man can number, who shout, 
'' Salvation to our God, which sitteth upon the throne, 
and unto the Lamb," '^ and have washed their robes, 
and made them white in the blood of the Lamb;" — 
the same multitude, mentioned in chapter xix. the 
voice of whose thunderings rolls along the skies, " say- 
ing, Allelujah; for the Lord God Omnipotent reign- 
eth; let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to 



SALVATION OF INFANTS. 147 

him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his 
wife hath made herself ready." Now, can any one, 
we ask, whose soul is sanctified by the working of the 
Lamb's blood, affirm, that in this thundering accla- 
mation of redeemed millions, there is not a single note 
from infant lips! From the grand choir which makes 
heaven's high arches ring, when the man of Calvary 
saith "• Come ye blessed of my Father," must all in- 
fants be excluded ! Must all the little mourners of 
Rama be cut off from rejoicing now ! Not an infant 
be allowed to tune its voice to praise redeeming love ! 
Believe it, if ye can, ye mothers in Israel ! Believe 
it, ye who have closed in death the eyes of loveliness — 
who have deposited in clay the fragile form-s which 
fade in immortality ! Believe it, ye whose souls an- 
ticipate with joy the promised morn, when youth and 
'' beauty immortal shall wake from her tomb;" — 
whose ears hope then to hear, in clear and silvery 
tones, from lips denied such utterance here below, the 
song of Moses and the Lamb ! 

Ah no ! This ye cannot believe, for faith must have 
the evidence of testimony to rest upon: and God has 
recorded no testimony against the doctrine of infant 
salvation. No part of the Bible affirms, that they are 
received to eternal happiness, on any other grounds 
than through the blood and righteousness of your 
blessed Redeemer. Parental /azYA, and parental /^^Z- 
mg unite in the blessed hope, that their dead infants 
shall live and reign with Christ, forever ; — that hea- 
ven's music would be incomplete without the sym- 
phony of their sweet voices ; that until they strike 
their lofty notes, half the praises of redeeming blood 
remain unsung. 

Let it then be a settled truth with us, that infants 
who die, and go to heaven, are redeemed from death 
and hell, by the blood of Calvary; they are washed in- 
the same fountain with their redeemed parents, and 
enrobed with them in the same garments of a Saviour's 
righteousness ; their sin is pardoned through the same 
atonement, and they are justified by the obedience of 
the one Redeemer. 



148 ONLY SINNERS CAN BE SAVED. 

Reader, have I your judgment — I know I have 
your heart; but have I your understanding^ your head 
with me in this conclusion ? I do not wish to take 
advantage of your ten.der feeling. Let reason and 
judgment be convinced. Before we proceed, let us be 
agreed here : for it may perhaps be the case, that from 
the inevitable consequences of admitting the above 
truth, you may wish to flinch hereafter: hence my 
deep anxiety to carry your most deliberate and 
thorough convictions with me. Turn back then, and 
inspect afresh, the two preceding remarks, that you 
may be fully convinced of their truth, before we shall 
proceed farther. 



SECTION III. 

ONLY SINNERS CAN BE SAVED. 

Jesus Christ came to save sinners, and he finished 
the work given to him by the Father. ^'I came not to 
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.'' " To 
seek and to save that which was lost.'' "I am not 
sent but to the Zc?S(^sA^ej9of the house of Israel." "They 
that are whole, have no need of the physician; but 
they that are sick.'' "This thy brother was dead and 
is alive again, he was lostsmd is found." No position 
can be laid down, more consonant with scripture, and 
with common sense, than this. Let us look at it some- 
what in detail. 

1. Repentance cannot take place except where 
there is sin. The reason is plain. Repentance is the 
mind's turning from sin to God, with loathing and ab- 
horrence of sin, and sorrow for it ; and love to God 
and holiness. If a being is holy, and free from all 
sin, there is no room for repentance ; the thing is 
impossible. A man cannot repent of sin in which he 
had no participation. 

2. Regeneration is that spiritual change which is 
effected by the Holy Ghost, in and upon the soul of 
man, at his conversion. It implies the soul's being 
in a state of spiritual death. That which is not spir- 



ONLY SINNERS CAN BE SAVED. 149 

itually dead cannot be made spiritually alive again. 
True, believers ''have passed from death unto life:" 
they were dead — so dead, that except they be born 
again — made anew to live, they could not enter into 
the kingdom of God. Jesus did not come to save, by 
the renewing of the Holy Ghost, those who were al- 
ways alive and never were dead. As a Saviour he has 
to do only with the lost. If one be not dead in sins, 
he cannot be made alive in Christ. If there is no hurt 
in the daughter of my people, she has no need of the 
balm of Gilead, and the physician there : if there be 
no blindness, there can be no restoration of sight. 

3. Pardon of sin implies its guilt. Pardon is the 
lifting up from a person, of the punishment which he 
deserves — to which by a sentence of law he is expo- 
sed. It is an authoritative removal of that punish- 
ment, so that it cannot be inflicted upon him. If no 
sin is justly charged upon a man, he cannot be par- 
doned. Pardon is an act of sovereignty ; but even 
sovereignty cannot pardon, where there is no guilt. 
Let the sovereign of a nation offer pardon to a virtuous, 
upright citizen, who has offended no law, and what 
will he think ? How will his indignation kindle ? 
Pardon for what ? Forgiveness ! How insulting. Not 
even the sovereign of the universe can pardon a sinless 
creature. 

4. For holy beings who have never sinned, there 
can be no atonement rendered. He who has offended 
no law, has no restitution to make to an offended law: 
and he who has no restitution to make to violated 
law, can have no need, and no room, for a friend to 
make restitution. Unless I am a slave to offended 
justice, no man can purchase my freedom. Unless I 
am a captive sold under sin, no man can pay the price 
of my redemption. 

5. If any one have the righteousness of the law in 
himself, and of himself, he cannot be justified through 
the righteousness of another. ''Whosoever of you 
are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace," 
i. e. from justification by grace: this ye have renoun- 
ced. Either the meritorious obedience of Christ, or 

13* 



150 INFANTS NEED SALVATION. 

that of the man himself, must justify him. Either 
he must wear the seamless robe of Immanuel's 
righteousness, or the tattered garments of his own. 
In this case, he is justified by works, and receives 
heaven as his own reward : in that, he is justified by 
grace, through faith in the righteousness of Christ ; 
and receives heaven as a gift of God. 

From these particulars it is obvious, to a demon- 
stration, that sinful, polluted, condemned, and guilty 
persons only^ can be saved through Jesus Christ our 
Lord. 



SECTION IV. 

infants; guilty, condemned, polluted, and sinful beings. 

1. If they were not made sinners by the disobe- 
dience of the one Adam ; they could not be made 
righteous by the obedience of the other. If we 
maintain their salvation through the righteousness of 
Christ; there is no alternative, we must maintain 
their previous sinfulness, through the disobedience of 
Adam. 

2. Regenerated and sanctified, they cannot pos- 
sibly be, unless they were previously polluted and 
dead. The Holy Ghost cannot remove from them 
pollution, if they have none: He cannot give them 
holiness, if they have it already : He cannot restore 
them to life spiritual, if they have never lost it : un- 
less they were dead, they could not be made alive 
again ; unless they were lost, they could not be found. 
Here, also, there is no evasion. Either we must 
deny the doctrine of infant regeneration ; we must 
deny that they are born of the Spirit; or we must 
admit that they are by nature, dead in trespasses and 
sins. ^' There is no regeneration, or renovation,'' 
says Richard Baxter, "but from sin/' On this point, 
the fact of infant circumcision and baptism consti- 
tutes a cogent argument. It was pressed upon Pela- 
gius and his followers, by Augustine and others, with 
overpowering effect. Pelagius denied the doctrine of 



INFANTS NEED SALVATION. 151 

original sin. ^'Therefore, we conclude," says his 
friend Julian, "that the triune God should be adored 
as most just, and it has been made to appear most 
irrefragably, that the sin of another never can be 
imputed to little children.'' And again, "Hence, 
that is evident, which we defend as most reasonable, 
that no one is born in sin, and that God never judges 
man to be guilty, on account of his birth." Pelagius 
was confronted with the fact, that children are "bap- 
tized for the remission of sins," and he could never 
meet the argument, yet could he never escape from 
it. He expressed great indignation, nevertheless, at 
a report which was spread, that he denied infant bap- 
tism ; affirming in strong terms, the falsehood of the 
report ; and that he maintained the baptism of infants 
according to the universal custom of the church. 
Now, if baptism has any meaning at all, it is, that 
those who are washed, were polluted. "I will pour 
water upon him that is thirsty — I will pour my Spirit 
upon thy seed, my blessing upon thine offspring." 
Cleansing, by the blood and spirit of Christ, is most 
unquestionably intended, in the ordinance of baptism. 
Most assuredly, therefore, the baptising of infants, 
which has been practised universally by the whole 
church, from the beginning of the Christian dispensa- 
tion until since the reformation, teaches that infants 
need to be washed by the blood of Christ, and re- 
newed by the spirit of our God. 

3. Gratitude for pardon, no infant can ever utter, 
unless it has been condemned, and held liable to 
punishment. The fact of infant lips being engaged 
in praising redeeming love, is therefore conclusive 
evidence, that they feel themselves indebted to Jesus 
for their redemption ; that they have received through 
him the remission of sins ; that He suffered for them 
the pains of death ; that He made for them an effi- 
cient atonement, and rendered a full satisfaction to 
the injured law. 

" Against this doctrine [which denies original sin] 
Richard Baxter directed his mighty pen. Works, vol. 
xiii. 91,&c. "You cannot/' sayshe, " exempt infants 



152 INFANTS NEED SALVATION. 

themselves from sin and misery without exempting 
them from Christ the Redeemer and the remedy.'' 
He then pours forth more than half a page of texts, 
and proceeds : " If infants have no sin and misery, 
then they are none of the body^ the church, which 
Christ loved and gave himself for, that he might 
cleanse it." You will observe how specifically he fas- 
tens down sin as well as misery upon infants, and he 
then mentions the guilty and the punishment of sin 
in the case of infants. " But what need we further 
proof, when we have the common experience of all 
the world? Would every man that is born of a 
woman, without exception, so early manifest sin in 
the life, if there were no corrupt disposition at the 
heart ? And would all mankind, without exception, 
taste of the punishment of sin^ if they had no partici- 
pation of sin, if they had no participation of the guilt? 
'' Death is the wages of sin ; and by sin death entered 
into the world, and it passeth upon all men, for that 
all have sinned." Rom. v. 12. Infants have sickness, 
and torments, and death, which are the fruits of sin. 
And were they not presented to Christ as a Saviour, 
when he took them in his arms and blessed them, and 
said '' of such is the kingdom of heaven ?" Certainly 
none that never were guilty^ nor miserable, are capa- 
ble of a place in the kingdom of the Mediator. For 
to what end should he mediate for them ? or how 
should he redeem them that need not a redemption ? 
or how should he reconcile them to God, that never 
were at enmity with him ? or how can he wash them 
that never were unclean? when the whole have no 
need of the physician. Matt. ix. 12. He " came to 
seek, and to save that which was lost." Luke xix. 10. 
and to save '^ the people from their sins," Matt. i. 21. 
They are none of his saved people, therefore, that had 
no sin. He came " to redeem them that were under 
the law." Gal. iv. 5. But it is most certain that 
infants were under the law, as well as the adult: and 
they were a part of '' his people Israel, whom he 
visited and redeemed." Luke i. 68. If ever they be 
admitted into glory, they must praise him, '' that 



INFANTS NEED SALVATION. 153 

redeemed them by his blood." Rev. v. 9. [p. 94,] 
" Infants then, are sinners, or none of those that he 
came to save. Christ hath made no man righteous by 
his obedience, but such as Adam made sinners by his 
disobedience," — '' There is no regeneration, or reno- 
vation but from sin," [p. 95] "If they think that any 
infants are saved, it is either by covenant, or without ; 
there is some promise for it, or there is none." [96] 
He concludes. " By the fulness of this evidence, it 
is easy to see, that infants and all mankind are sm- 
ners^ and therefore have need of a Redeemer." 

" Richard Baxter then, hath fully taught, 1, That 
infants are polluted and need regeneration; 2, Are 
dead spiritually and need regeneration. .3, Are 
guilty, liable to punishment, and can be pardoned."* 

Thus the salvation of infant humanity contains evi- 
dence irresistible, that it v^^as a lost humanity. The 
doctrine of original sin, both as to pollution and guilt, 
is pre-supposed by the doctrine of infant salvation: 
they stand or fall together. He that denies the pre- 
sence of the poison, must as a rational man, reject 
the antidote. 

We close this argument by a few remarks : 

1. The whole question relative to the state of 
infants, is of importance chiefly — almost solely, 
because of its connexion with the more general doc- 
trine of original sin, and so with the more general doc- 
trine of legal imputation. As to those who die in 
infancy, it can only affect them so far as the prayer 
of faith, and piety is instrumental in their salvation. 
Those who believe their infant ofl'spring to be under 
the curse by nature, do also believe that the same 
principles of law, by which they were brought to this 
wretched condition, are applied in the covenant of 
grace, and do secure their redemption; the means 
towards which are, diligence, faith, and prayer, on 
the part of their parents. And hence, the general, 
and, as I suppose, obvious fact^ that those parents 
who feel, that they themselves have been the means of 

* See Vindication, pp. 103, 4. 



154 ORIGINAL SIN. 

bringing their dear babes under the curse, by being 
the connecting links between them and Adam, do also 
feel an awful and solemn responsibility resting upon 
their souls, viz: the obligation to be the means of 
bringing their beloved offspring into the new covenant, 
that they may enjoy the blessing. 

2. We see from this argument, the atheistical tenden- 
cy of the Pelagian scheme, or that system which denies 
original sin — which denies that infants, before they 
sin personally themselves, are sinners under condem- 
nation. I say, the tendency of the system is atheis- 
tical. To be convinced of this, you have only to sit 
down with these doctrines before you, at the cradle of 
expiring infancy. Mark there the inward struggle, 
the outward contortion, the deep heaving sigh of that 
tender bosom, the wildly rolling eye, the quivering 
lip, the agonizing shriek, the dying groan, the parting 
breath ; and tell me, is there a righteous God ? This 
child has no sin upon him in any sense ; wherefore 
these sufferings ? If love and beauty, and innocence, 
and holiness can thus suffer, who governs the world ? 
Who gives life and takes it thus away ? Who is it, 
that can thus sport with agonies unutterable ! Can 
spotless justice and almighty power dwell with him ! 

Either then, infants are justly liable to suffer pain, 
sorrow, and death, or there is no God. 

3. What a dreadful evil must sin be, which thus 
brings down the tokens of Heaven's displeasure, thou- 
sands of years after its perpetration ! One single 
transgression of God's law, has subjected an entire 
race ; myriads of millions of immortal minds, to the 
vengeance of an Almighty arm ! What then must be 
our final doom, seeing such effects follow from one 
sin, if we add thousands of actual transgressions to 
the sin of our nativity, and crown the whole by tramp- 
ling under foot the Son of God, accounting the blood 
of his covenant an unholy thing, and doing despite to 
the spirit of his grace ! 

Forbid it gracious Heaven ! Amen, and Amen. 



155 



CHAPTER XI. 



THE UTTEE INABILITY OF MAN, IN HIS FALLEN STATE, 
TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW, AND THEREBY 
TO RESTORE HIMSELF TO THE FAVOUR OF GOD. 



SECTION I. 

THE GENERAL IDEA OF ABILITY AND INABILITY. 

These terms are of opposite significations, and 
therefore, the exposition of one, will afford the true 
idea of the other also. But there are few words m 
difficult to understand, as ability and inability ; and 
that, because of the intrinsic difficulty of the subject. 
How we acquire the idea of ability, or power, is a 
question which has vexed the w^orld of philosophers no 
little. Toward procuring a correct response, let us 
remark, 1. Poiver or ahility (for I use them as syno- 
nymous) is a relative idea ; that is, it has reference to 
something to be done, or resisted. We can have no 
conception of power, but relatively to action, for the 
accomplishment of something; or of passive resist- 
ance. Power, to do what? Ability, to resist what? 
Therefore 2. The idea of j^owe?^ seems to be derived 
from the perception of changes, occurring in things 
without us, and thoughts and feelings within us. This 
appears to have been the idea of Mr. Locke; and 
therefore he distinguishes it into active and passive 
power; or, as subsequent philosophers have improved 
the phraseology into iJower and susceptibility. If this 
be correct— if our conception of power is relative to 
changes perceived by us, we learn, 3. The idea of 
cause and effect. 

Changes that are seen or felt, in frequent connex- 



156 ABILITY AND INABILITY. 

ion wltli each other, especially if they occur in the 
same order — are, by a very general law of the mind, 
deemed to have a necessary connexion ; so that the one 
must be followed by the other. Whilst we are en- 
tirely ignorant of what it is, yet we are necessitated 
to believe, that there is something in the one adapting 
or suiting it to be the predecessor of the other. This 
adaptation, we call the 'power and ability in the cause, 
to produce the effect. For example, we observe a 
change takes place on the snow, whenever the warm 
sunshine lights upon it. It liquifies, and and runs oiT, 
in the form of water. The latter is the effect, and 
the former is the cause. There is a power in the sun's 
rays to melt snow. A man stoops and grasps a fifty-six 
pound weight with his hand, and straightens himself : 
the weight rises from the ground: he has ^oz^^r to 
lift it. But now, the man grasps a ton weight, and 
endeavours to straighten himself, and does not ; he is 
not dble^ he has not poiver to lift a ton. Again, 
he constructs a compound lever or a pulley and tackle, 
and applies it to the ton, and lifts it : he has ahility 
to lift a ton. Now these two propositions, that a man 
is able to lift a ton — and, a man is unable to lift a ton, 
both are true: and yet they appear contradictory. 
Evidently, therefore, the term ability, is used in diffe- 
rent senses. In the former, it refers to physical 
ability, in the latter, to intellectual, so to speak, or 
mechanical, combined with physical ability. The par- 
ticular kind of power, must depend upon the particu- 
lar nature of the change effected. Ahility is a rela- 
tive idea. Causes and effects have a natural adapta- 
tion or suitableness, one to the other. If this could 
be kept steadfastly in mind, it appears to me, it would 
deliver us from a vast amount of confusion on this sub- 
ject. All kinds of power or ability, imply some ob- 
stacle, opposition, or counterbalancing power, or 
force. I can form no idea, conception, or thought of 
power, without having express reference to some kind, 
or character of resistance, or force to be overcome by 
it — some change to be effected. The attempt to form 
such an idea, is an attempt to conceive of a pair of 



ABILITY AND INABILITY, 157 

balances, with but one scale. Now the denomination 
of the power, depends upon the nature of this related 
force; the character of the ability is ascertained, only 
from the nature of the change effected. If it be a 
change upon mere inert matter, as the change upon the 
snow, by the sun's action, it is mere physical power. 
If it be a change upon mind, wherein ignorance has 
given place to knowledge, it is intellectual power. If 
it be a change upon the moral feelings, it is moral 
power. 

These three are clearly distinct. That ability, or 
power, by which the man lifted the half hundred 
weight, is physical or natural ability: and no one can 
be at any loss to distinguish it from that int-ellectual 
ability^ which is exerted in planning and calculating 
the power of a compound lever or tackle, or the dis- 
tance of a planet, or the duration of an eclipse of the 
sun : and yet, in these latter operations, the former 
power is in requisition : for by it he makes the figures 
of his calculation. But surely no man will say that 
it was physical ahility that calculated the eclipse, 
or intellectual ahility that held the pencil, and marked 
the characters upon the paper. Moreover, as we 
have seen, (chap. I. sec. v., vi.) rational intelligence, or 
intellectual power, may exist, and that in connexion 
with volition, apart from moral agency. There must 
be (sec. vii.) also moral power- — an ability to perceive 
a right and a wrong in intelligent action. Until the 
rational being, who has also physical power, possess 
this moral sense, having no moral power, he is of 
course not a moral agent. Animal appetites may 
operate as motives, leading him to act in the use and 
means to gratify themselves, but until he is able to 
distinguish a right and a wrong^ morally^ that is, in 
reference to God's law, he cannot be influenced by 
motives of a moral nature. But as the Creator has 
endued man with such power, and as this, though in 
an impaired state, still abides with him, he, of course, 
is accountable for its exercise. Now, to the existence 
of moral power, intellectual power is necessary, and to 
the manifestations of each, physical power is equally 
14 



158 ABILITY AND INABILITY. 

indispensable : that is, a man must have 7iatural ahi- 
lity^ in order, not to the exercise of intellectual and of 
moral ability^ but to the manifestation of that exercise. 
The soul may reason, and its moral qualities be called 
into action, independent of mere physical power, as 
after death, but as its actions are made known in this 
state, only by the physical powers of the body, these 
are necessary to communicate the knowledge of its 
operations. But their possession does not involve 
the other. It cannot be said of a horse, that he has 
physical ability to calculate an eclipse, or to obey the 
moral law of God. He has more natural ability than 
a man has, but physical ability cannot, without ab- 
surdity, be affirmed to be the antecedent cause of 
intellectual or of moral effects. It is surely, no more 
absurd to affirm, that a horse has natural ability to 
calculate an eclipse, than to affirm, that a man has 
natural, or even intellectual ability to obey the moral 
law of God. The horse has strength, more than need 
be expended in making the figures of the calculation ; 
but then the expenditure of this kind of ability, in no 
conceivable degree, could secure the effect required, 
viz. : the calculation of an eclipse. The man has phy- 
sical and intellectual ability, more than are requisite 
to be expended in keeping many of the moral precepts 
of the law, but no possible amount of expenditure of 
such power, could secure the effect required ; viz. 
moral obedience. Nothing but moral power can be 
the antecedent cause of moral effects: nothing but 
intellectual power can be the antecedent cause of intel- 
lectual effects : nothing but physical power can be the 
antecedent cause of physical effects. To affirm that 
a horse has physical power to draw a train of cars on 
a railroad, is to speak truth and common sense : but to 
affirm that a horse has physical power to run a line of 
levels, and calculate the proper grading of the road, 
is to sin against truth and common sense. And why ? 
Simply, because, it is asserting the connexion of 
things, as cause and effect^ Avhich are not so connected, 
nor can be. Now, I aver, that it is equally absurd 
to affirm, that man has natural ability to keep the 



ABILITY AND INABILITY. 159 

moral law — natural ability to exercise moral causa- 
tion — natural ability to love God and man ! 

We are told, that it requires no more natural ability 
to love God, than to hate him. No, truly; and it re- 
quires no more moral ability to be an horse than an 
elephant : it requires no more intellectual power to be 
a clod, than a paving stone. There is probably, less 
natural and intellectual ability in Gabriel, than in 
Satan. But what hence results? Why this; that 
no measure of ability can go beyond its own kind. If 
physical and intellectual power could secure moral 
results, the devil would probably be above the mightiest, 
and the holiest angel in heaven. But, inasmuch as 
love to God, is a moral effect, it never can proceed 
from these powers of Satan, for they are not moral- 
The general idea of ability then, is, that quality in a 
causCj wMchy being appropriately used^ produces its 
effect. A man's ability to lift a stone, lies in the 
strength of his physical frame : his ability to calculate 
an eclipse, lies in his intellectual powers, as developed 
by his education: his ability to love God and his 
neighbour, lies in his moral powers of perception and 
feeling, as developed and sanctified by the spirit of 
God, who, therein, sheds abroad the love of God in 
his heart. 



SECTION IL 

THE COMMON DISTINCTION OF NATURAL, AND MORAL INABILITY, STATED. 

" We are said to be naturally unable to do any 
thing, when we cannot do it, if we will, because, what is 
most commonly called nature, does not allow of it, or 
because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is 
extrinsic to the will; either in the faculty of under- 
standing, constitution of body, or external objects. 
Moral inability consists, not in any of these things ; 
but either in the want of inclination ; or the strength 
of a contrary inclination ; or the want of sufficient 
motives in view, to induce and excite the act of the 
will; or the strength of apparent motives to the con- 



160 DISTINCTION OF NATURAL 

trary. Or both these may be resolved into one ; and 
it may be said in one word, that moral inability con- 
sists in the opposition or want of inclination. For 
when a person is unable to will, or choose such a things 
through a defect of motives^ or prevalence of contrary 
motiyes, it is the same thing as being unable, through 
the want of an inclination, or the prevalence of a con- 
trary inclination, in such circumstances, and under 
the influence of such views." Edwards' works, ii. 35. 
Natural inability, this great theologian divides into 
two parts, viz : ^'because nature does not allow of it," 
and '^because of some impeding defect," But in 
breaking down the latter into the three particulars^ 
he includes one, which, it appears to me, comes in 
under the prohibition of nature. The impeding obsta- 
cle or defect lies, either in the faculty of understand- 
ing^ constitution of lody^ or external objects. Nature 
does not allow a man to live in water, or a fish on 
land: this is a natural inability. ^^The natural man 
discerneth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they 
are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them, 
\xai ov ^vvcutai yi'cDj^at] and he is not able to know theraJ' 
1 Cor. ii. 15. This, according to Edwards, is a natu- 
ral inability : for it is the inability of a natural man : 
and it arises from " some impeding defect or obstacle 
in the faculty of understanding." Mephibosheth was 
naturally unahle to go out and meet David, because 
of bodily constitution; he was lame. Saul was un- 
able to seize David and put him to death, because of 
external hindrances. 

Moral inability^ Edwards makes to be, simply the 
absence of a will; it ''consists in the opposition or 
want of inclination." ''A drunkard," he says, ''un- 
der such and such circumstances, may be unable to 
forbear taking strong drink"^ — he is unwilling to ab- 
stain because of the "prevalence of contrary motives." 
If the writer does not labour under a natural inabili- 
ty "in the faculty of understanding," this distinction 
simply is, that moral inability is a want of willing- 
ness; and natural inability is opposition of nature^ 
rendering the thing impossible; or defect in our intel- 



AND MORAL INABILITY. 161 

lectualy or bodily powerSy rendering it impossible to 
us. 

This distinction has been thought of great import- 
ance, in treating of man's moral agency in his present 
fallen condition. It is often maintained, that man 
has a natural ability ; that is, he has all the powers of 
body and mind, (not the faculties simply, but the 
power of exercising them,) necessary to enable him to 
fulfil all moral duty ; he lacks only the moral ability, 
the will : and if he had this moral ability or will, he 
would have all that is necessary to fulfil the whole law 
of God. This, it is thought, indispensable to main- 
tain, in order to sustain his agency. It is feared, 
that if the total inability of man to save himself and 
lead a holy life, is set before him, it will discourage 
efi'ort, and seal him up in a state of antinomian fatal- 
ism : hence some kind of ability must be asserted in 
order to encourage to effort, and counteract the ten- 
dency to apathy. If this be not the historical fact, 
as to the distinction, it is at least, unquestionably, the 
present use of it. Men are told that they are able, 
whensoever they will, to make for themselves a new 
heart, and to lead a life of holy obedience. 



SECTION III. 

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINES OF NATURAL ABILITY AND MORAL 

INABILITY. 

1. To speak of inability of will is an abuse of lan- 
guage. Edwards felt and acknowledged this; [ii. 37.] 
for after stating the distinction, he says, " But it must 
be observed concerning moral inability ^ in each kind 
of it, that the word inability is used in a sense very 
diverse from its original import. The word signifies 
only a natural inability, in the proper use of it ; and 
is applied to such cases only, wherein a present will or 
inclination to the thing, with respect to which a per- 
son is said to be unable, is supposable." He proceeds 
to show the impropriety of predicating inability of the 
will. 

14* 



162 ABILITY AND INABILITY. 

2. The absurdity of this, is my second objection 
against the doctrine ; and this absurdity, no man has 
better exposed than Edwards himself, ii. 88. Having 
defined freedom and liberty to be '' The power j op- 
portunity^ or advantage that any one has, to do as he 
pleases,'' he says — 'Hhen it will follow, that in pro- 
priety of speech, neither liberty, nor its contrary, can 
properly be ascribed to any being or thing, but that 
which has such a faculty, power, or property, as is 
called a will. For that which is possessed of no will, 
cannot have ^^tlj poiver or opportunity oi diOmg accord- 
ing to its willy nor be necessitated to act contrary to 
its will, nor be restrained from acting agreeably to it. 
And, therefore, to talk of liberty or the contrary, as 
belonging to the very ivill itself, is not to speak good 
sense ; if we judge of sense, and nonsense, by the ori- 
ginal and proper signification of words. — For the will 
itself, is not an agent that has a will: the power of 
choosing, itself, has not a power of choosing. That 
which has the power of volition is the man, or the 
soul, and not the power of volition itself. And he 
that has the liberty of doing according to his will, is 
the agent who is possessed of the will ; and not the 
-will which he is possessed of." 

These sentiments Edwards borrowed from Locke, 
whose doctrines ought to have prevented much con- 
troversy and contention. He had perceived the con- 
fusion resulting from our speaking of the faculties of 
the mind, by a kind of personification — intimating, 
" that this way of speaking of faculties, has misled 
many into a confused notion of so many distinct 
agents in us, which had their several provinces and 
authorities, and did command and obey, and perform 
several actions, as so many distinct beings." B. 2. 
C. 21. s. 6. AVhereas, the truth is, the will of man, is 
the mind or soul exercising choice, and the whole ac- 
tion of the mind, in thus choosing, is called volition. 
Hence Mr. Locke shows, as Edwards does above, that 
''lih^rij belongs not to volition.'' ^'Suppose," says 
he, ''a man carried, whilst fast asleep, into a room, 
where is a person he longs to see and speak with ; 



ABILITY AND INABILITY. 163 

and be there locked fast in, beyond his power to get 
out ; he wakes, and is glad to find himself in so de- 
sirable company, which he stays willingly in, i. e. 
prefers his staying to going away: I ask, is not this 
stay voluntary ? I think nobody will doubt it ; and 
yet being locked fast in, it is evident he is not at 
liberty not to stay, he has not freedom to be gone. So 
that liberty is not an idea, belonging to volition^ or 
preferring, but to the person having the power of 
doing, or forbearing to do, according as the mind 
shall choose or direct." (ii. 21, 10.) He rejects the 
question whether mans will be free or no ? as unrea- 
sonable and unintelligible ; like the question whether 
a man's sleep be swift or his virtue square; -'liberty 
being as little applicable to the tvill^ as swiftness or 
motion is to sleep, or squareness to virtue." 

It seems then, that neither ability nor freedom can, 
with any propriety, be predicated of the will. They 
are both attributes of persons, and not attributes of 
attributes. But if freedom and ability cannot be 
ascribed to the will, neither can bondage and inability 
be so predicated. What could be meant by a bond 
or enslaved will ? What by a will disabled ? There- 
fore to call the mere absence of choice, the want of a 
preference in the mind by the name of inability^ is at 
once to abuse language, and to introduce confusion 
of thought, to the great perplexity of the subject, and 
the injury of truth and sound philosophy. 

3. This distinction is useless; for it relieves the sub- 
ject of morals and religion of no difficulty. The pur- 
pose for which it is introduced; viz: to constitute the 
basis of moral agency, is not subserved by it. We 
have seen the true ground, and rule of duty to lie in 
the will of God, made known to man. The Creator 
originally endowed man with certain powers, and pre- 
scribed the rule of action. To reduce the standard 
of moral obligation to the present ability of man, is 
the distinguishing feature of the Armenian scheme. 
A man cannot be bound to do, what he is unable to 
do: inability cancels moral obligation. Ability — 
present ability is the measure of present duty. Ou 



164 DISTINCTION OF ABILITY, 

this let us have a few particular observations. (1) It 
■will be admitted, that a man is bound morally, " to 
provide for those of his own household." But the 
drunken gambler, who has squandered away an abun- 
dant patrimony, destroyed his health and reduced him- 
self to a poor, helpless wretch, is not able to provide for 
his household ; therefore, he is not bound to provide : for 
no man can be bound to do what he is unable to do ! 
But if a man is not under obligation, he cannot sin 
against obligation ; consequently, the drunkard's pre- 
sent neglect of his family is no sin at all. (2) These 
things being so, we see, that sin is its own apology and 
its own cure : its own apology, for every thing but the 
first act: and its own cure, because, whenever the disa- 
bilities, resulting from it, are complete, it can be no 
longer sinful. (8) As I have elsewhere observed, ^'Ap- 
ply this principle to the commercial transactions of 
society. A man contracts a debt within the compass 
of his present ability; he perversely and wickedly 
squanders his estate, gambles away his property, and 
disables himself from payment, is he therefore not 
bound? Is he free from moral obligation to pay it? 
Must justice break her scales, and no more hold up an 
equal balance, because he chooses to be a villain? Oh 
no ! the children of this world are wise in their genera- 
tion. The merchant may forgive the debt ; but forgive- 
ness implies obligation to pay. The master whose 
servant has maimed himself, may omit to demand ser- 
vice or to punish for its neglect, but it is an omission of 
mercy. The law may not prosecute the vender of 
ardent spirits who poisons his neighbour into intem- 
perance and ruin; the beggared wife and children 
may be unable to exact justice of him, but it is be- 
cause cupidity and lust are more powerful than justice. 
(4) ^^This principle is a subversion at once, of all 
moral government. Let it be known throughout the 
moral universe, that inability, (resulting from the 
most perverse wickedness) cancels moral obligation, 
and there will henceforth commence a jubilee in the 
realms of rebellion." (5) But the argument most 
conclusive, perhaps, against this limit to moral obli- 



NATURAL AND MORAL, 165 

gation, Is that which takes its advocates on their own 
principle. They maintain, that man has the natural 
ability, viz: the physical and the intellectual power 
which qualify him to obey all God's commands ; and 
if he had not, he could not be bound to obey : that is, 
natural ability qualifies for moral duty : and where 
this is not, there can be no moral obligation. Then, 
if natural inaMlity cancels moral obligation^ much 
more does moral inability cancel moral obligation. 
But they admit, that man labours under a moral in- 
ability, consequently, they much more destroy the 
foundations of moral agency. 

4. But should we even waive all objections to the 
accuracy, and abstract truth of the distinction, there 
is a most serious objection to its practical application. 
If man had natural ability to keep all the divine com- 
mands, and lacked moral ability only, still, in applying 
the doctrine, its advocates lose sight of the latter 
half of it, so that in broad terms, they afiirm that man 
is able to meet all the requisitions of God. Full abi- 
lity is asserted, and insisted on, as indispensable to 
moral agency ; and when this belief exists in the mind, 
it leads to many ruinous results. It puffs up the pride 
of the heart. A man who believes that he is able to 
do all that God requires of him, will, of course, des- 
pise the proffered mercy of the gospel. " I was alive," 
says Paul, ^'without the law once." He felt himself 
able to do all things himself. And such is the natural 
and necessary tendency of the doctrine, that a man 
has it all in his own power and can repent and believe, 
and be saved, at any moment he pleases. This is the 
general belief of impenitent men. This is the broad 
road of Armenian antinomianism, along which almost 
the entire mass of the unbelieving millions, are de- 
scending to the chambers of eternal death. To con- 
vince them of their utter helplessness is the difficulty, 
which nothing but the almighty energies of the Holy 
Ghost can overcome. When such persons do become 
a little alarmed, they ordinarily put themselves upon 
severe supposed duties, and having made a few efforts, 
they imagine themselves willing now to use their suffi- 



166 INABILITY ACCORDINa 

cient power; speedily speak peace to their souls, and 
procure some self-deluded mortal, like themselves, to 
^' daub with untempered mortar;" and to encourage 
hope ; and so they settle down as unconverted, proud 
professors of religion ; they " continue for a little while 
and then wither away.'' 

Thus much, it seemed necessary to say, in reference 
to this metaphysical doctrine of ability. The fearful 
havoc which both its use, and its abuse, have produced, 
and are now producing, in the American churches, 
renders it imperious upon all, who wish to see the 
humbling doctrines of human dependence upon divine 
grace for salvation, triumphant, to hold it up in the 
light of sound reason and sacred scripture. The latter 
will next claim our attention. 



SECTION IV. 

man's inability, as taught in the bible. 

We have seen, that the metaphysical distinction of 
ability^ into natural and moral, has no foundation in 
reason, nature and man; and that its use has been 
attended with very mischievous consequences to the 
cause of truth, and of human salvation. Let us now 
turn to the sacred Scriptures, and ascertain, if possi- 
ble, what they say in reference to man's duty and in- 
ability ; and in this inquiry, let us be guided by the 
obvious and natural arrangement before presented; 
let us inquire what the Bible says concerning the 
bodily^ mental and moral powers or abilities. 

1. His bodily powers are in a ruined state ; his fac- 
ulties are enfeebled, and this as a result of his sin. 
And here, it may be well to remark, that little is 
aflSirmed directly, of this in the sacred Scriptures ; the 
proofs are rather indirect. They seem to assume the 
fact of man's powers being prostrated by sin, as so 
obvious, that all the race must feel and confess it : and 
this kind of assumed concession is stronger proof than 
any direct assertion. So the Bible rarely, if ever, 
directly and formally asserts, the existence of God, yet 



TO THE BIBLE. 167 

it very abundantly testifies to that fundamental prin- 
ciple of religion. In like manner is assumed, oftener 
at least than directly affirmed, the doctrine, that the 
bodily powers of the race have been injured by the 
fall. Among the numberless passages to this effect, 
let us advert to the following : Rom. v. 12, " by one 
man sin entered into the w^orld and death by sin.'' 
This has express reference to the words of the cove- 
nant, '4n the day thou eat est thereof, thou shalt surely 
die." It is a fact, that death is the result of sin. Now, 
that bodily death is included under this, will not be 
denied by any ; and especially is it not denied by those 
whom we oppose here ; for their policy has been to 
confine the threatening of the covenant, to the. death 
of the body. The only question is, whether death 
implies a failure of the powers of the body ; whether 
sickness, feebleness, the wasting of the energies of the 
body, are included. If this can be admitted, and how 
can it be denied ? — then the Bible does teach physical 
inability, bodily infirmity, as a result of sin. The 
sorrows and sufferings of the body have all one com- 
mon origin. ''Because thou hast barkened unto the 
voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which 
I commanded thee, saying. Thou shalt not eat of it, 
cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt thou 
eat of it, all the days of thy life." Are not sickness, 
painful weariness, faintness, feebleness, and all the 
calamities of the body, included? ''Unto the woman 
he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy 
conception." Can there remain in any mind the sha- 
dow of a doubt? Does not every one feel within him- 
self the evidence of sin's enfeebling influence? Do 
not " rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wan- 
tonness" — do not all sensual indulgences tend to de- 
stroy the powers of nature ? Surely, we waste time, 
and insult the common sense of mankind, in delaying 
to prove what needs no proof. No man can be igno- 
rant of the facts, and of the principle, that when the 
talent is abused, it should be taken from the posses- 
sor. 

The only thing necessary farther, is distinctly to 



168 INABILITY ACCORDINa 

call to the notice of the reader, the connexion be- 
tween bodily disease, pains, and sorrows, prostration 
and feebleness, and the moral causes of them ; viz. 
the sins of men, and especially, our first sin. The help- 
less sorrows and sulBFerings, and death of infant hu- 
manity, all result from sin — sin in the first of the race 
— the sin of all, through their first head, Adam. The 
very feebleness; the loss of power; the derangement 
of our faculties, all originate in sin, as their moral 
cause, and are penal results of it. The command, 
^Hake the talent from him," is founded upon the fact 
of its abuse ; the privation is penal ; it is an expres- 
sion of displeasure against the sin of misuse. As cer- 
tainly as the sin of intemperance is followed by loss 
of bodily health, soundness of constitution, mania, de- 
lirium tremens — that hell upon earth — and death, so 
certainly has the sin of Adam opened the door of 
numberless maladies, and paralysed the physical ener- 
gies of the whole race. 

2. Equally clear and humiliating is the truth, that 
the intellectual powers have sufi'ered by the fall. Here 
let us particularise. 

(1) The fact of human ignorance, is as clearly ex- 
hibited in the Scriptures as it is set forth before the 
eyes of all men. The minds, the understandings of 
men, are very defective. ^' Having the understand- 
ing darkened, being alienated from the life of God, 
through the ignorance that is in them, because of the 
blindness of their heart." Eph. iv. 18. A very early 
display of this ignorance, I have already referred to. 
This attempt to conceal themselves from the search- 
ing eye of Grod, betrays in our first parents, ignorance 
as well as guilt. Had not ^' their foolish heart been 
darkened," (Rom. i. 21) such attempt had not been 
made. (22) '' professing themselves to be wise they 
became fools." And the Apostle gives as proof of 
it, their idolatry, (v. 23.) "And changed the glory 
of the incorruptible God into an image." So Isaiah 
Ixiv. 18, " They have not known nor understood ; for 
he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see, and 
their hearts that they cannot understand, (v. 19.) 



TO THE BIBLE. 169 

And none consideretli in his heart, neither is there 
knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned 
part of it in the fire," and with a part of the same 
tree hath he made a God. And Paul was sent, (Acts 
xxvi. 18) to the Gentiles, "to open their eyes and to 
turn them from darkness to light," and Christ was 
raised from the dead, (v. 23,) "to show light unto the 
people and to the Gentiles." And Paul says, (2 Cor. 
iv. 3, 4,) "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them 
that are lost ; in whom the God of this world hath 
blinded the minds of them that believe not." It is 
superfluous to adduce scripture farther. The entire 
gospel scheme, presupposes a state of dreadful and 
soul destroying ignorance. The revelation- of God's 
will, and the system of means for illumination^ pre- 
suppose darkness. 

(2) This darkness, this ignorance is to man, unaid- 
ed by supernatural power, insuperable. Man never 
would, or could, overcome this ignorance-^dispel this 
darkness, because he has not the intellectual power. 
He labours under an imbecility of mind, to such a de- 
gree as to render it impossible for him to discover the 
true knowledge of God, and to understand the things 
of the Spirit of God. He has an understanding by 
which he can know natural things — can reason and 
investigate truth, and learn much of God's wisdom, 
displayed in the works of creation ; he can, he is able 
to know the moral truths of God's word as mere ab- 
stract propositions;, he can reason concerning them; 
but to have a true, saving, spiritual apprehension of 
them, is beyond his unaided powers. He is not able 
to know the things of the Spirit. There is a positive 
defect and inability in the mind. 1 Cor. ii. 14. "But 
the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit 
of God." By the natural man, here, is unquestion- 
ably meant, the unregenerate man — the man in whose 
soul the great work of spiritual illumination and re- 
generation has not been effected— an unconverted 
man. This is manifest from the whole train of the 
Apostle's remarks. In verse 12, he says, " Now we," 
Christians, believers — " have received, not the spirit 
15 



170 INABILITY ACCORDINa 

of the world, but the Spirit which is of God/' and for 
what end was the Spirit sent into the hearts of these 
sinners ? For this end, precisely, that they might be 
rescued from the chains of ignorance ; that their ina- 
bility of mind might be removed ; that the scales might 
fall from their eyes; "that we might know the things 
that are freely given to us of God." "Which things 
[of the Spirit] also w^e speak," "not in the words 
which man's wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy 
Ghost teacheth." Here is a contrast between man's 
wisdom, and its teachings, and the Spirit's wisdom, 
and his teachings; " comparing spiritual things with 
spiritual. For the natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit." The natural man is the unre- 
generated and unbelieving man : as is farther evident 
from the contrast between him and the spiritual man, 
(v. 15.) The Apostle then goes on to render a reason, 
why the natural or unregenerate man does not receive 
the things of the Spirit ; and this reason is a most 
cogent one. He does not receive them ; that is, he 
rejects them, because they are absurd, in his appre- 
hension ; and it is not in the nature of the human 
mind to receive as truth, that which it deems to be 
absurd, " for they are foolishness unto him." But this 
raises another question. Why do the things of the 
Spirit appear to the unconverted man foolishness ? 
Are they not in themselves the consummation of wis- 
dom? And if so, how can they be, to the sound un- 
derstanding of unconverted men, foolishness ? Wisdom 
is not folly : but it may so appear^ and be so treated, 
and that even by the mind, which, in other things, is 
not destitute of powers of perception. Wise sayings, 
uttered in an unknown tongue, "are foolishness." 
The lofty wisdom of the astronomer is foolishness to 
the simple, unlettered Christian, because he cannot 
understand them: he has not the powers of mind to 
grasp the mighty thoughts, and to comprehend the 
sublime demonstrations. The things of the Spirit are 
foolishness to the unrenewed man, because he cannot 
know them — he is dv bvvatav 7iot able to know them. 
Still the question returns upon us : Why is not the un- 



TO THE BIBLE. 171 

converted man able to know the things of the Spirit ? 
Has he not a clear and discriminating mind, and a 
strong calculating head? Can he not reason correct- 
ly after having perceived with precision ? Do not un- 
converted men give us the most illustrious exhibitions 
of the power of mind, and are not many of them 
the very giants of intellect? Vfhy then are they not 
able to know the things of the Spirit? This also, 
Paul meets ; because these things require a peculiar 
power of discrimination, which the unconverted have 
not — "they are spiritually discerned :" and the natu- 
ral man is not a spiritual man. Until he is taught of 
God — unless the '' eyes of his understanding be en- 
lightened," (Eph. i. 18,) he will never see any beauty 
in the son of man, or wisdom in the Spirit. Verse 15, 
" But he that is spiritual, discerneth all the things [of 
the Spirit] yet he himself is discerned of no one." In 
John viii. 43, Jesus asks " why do ye not understand 
my speech? Even because ye cannot — ye are not 
able to hear my word." 

But the knowledge of which we here speak, is con- 
nected with salvation ; for none have it,- or can have 
it, except the spiritual — those who are taught of the 
Spirit. Salvation is every where connected with the' 
knowledge of Christ, " and this is eternal life, to know 
thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou 
hast sent." This is equivalent to coming unto God 
or Christ, who says, (John vi. 44.) ''No man can come 
to me except the Father which hath sent me, draw him : 
and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in 
the prophets. And they shall be all taught of God. 
Every man, therefore that hath heard and learned of 
the Father cometh unto me." Here it is manifest, that 
heing taught of Grod and having learned of the Father ^ 
are equivalent phrases with conversion^ and coming 
unto the Father, 

But now the Redeemer affirms, explicitly, that '' no 
one is able to come — ovh)j' Uva^rxi sA&sty — to him, unless 
the Father draw him, and I will raise him up at the 
last day." He most intimately connects the drawing 
of the Father, with his raising the body from the dead. 



172 INABILITY ACCORDING 

Why this, unless, that the Father's drawing is like the 
Son's raising, that is, by a divine and almighty energy. 
This is explicitly shown in the explanation he gives, 
(verse 65.) " Therefore I said unto you, that no man 
can come unto me, except it were given unto him of 
my Father," — the coming to Jesus is given to the sin- 
ner : the drawing is a gracious exercise of the divine 
power. Whenever that energy is put forth, and the 
sinner is restored to spiritual life: whenever he be- 
comes a spiritual man, he comes : but not until then. 
The lame man cannot walk and leap, until he is made 
whole by a divine power. True, he is commanded to 
rise up and walk: but it is equally true, that he cannot 
— he is not able, until he is restored. 

It is well worthy of remark, that this word draw, is 
always used in scripture as expressive of force or 
power, which, in the face of resistance, overcomes. 
Allow me to adduce all the cases : John xviii. 10. Pe- 
ter having a sword, drew it. xxi. 6, 11 — 'Uhey were 
not able to draw the net" — into the ship. ''Peter 
drew the net to land." Acts xvi. 19. ''They d7'ew 
Paul and Silas into the market place, unto the rulers." 
xxi. 30. " they took Paul and drew him out of the 
temple." James ii. 6. " Do not rich men oppress you, 
and draw you before the judgment seats?" It is 
always a drawing by force, and where the thing drawn, 
has life, it is a drawing against the inclinations, wishes 
and desires. The fishes resisted — the prisoners are 
dragged against their inclination and desire. These 
are the only cases, except the one before us, and the 
parallel passage, chapter xii. 82, where Christ says, 
"And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all [my people] 
unto me" — where the draiving is the same as here. 
Now, the uniform use of the word teaches us the im- 
portant truth, that man before, and at the time the 
gospel net is thrown around him, is indisposed to come 
to Jesus — and when he feels himself enclosed by it, 
and the truths of God's word begin to cramp him up, 
he resists and arrays himself against God, until the 
divine Spirit changes his heart, and then he is made 
willing, and comes to Jesus. He is arrested by a 



TO THE BIBLE. 173 

process of law, and is dragged, by the power of the 
law in his conscience, before his judge ; fighting and 
resisting all the while, until the Holy Ghost touches 
his heart of stone, and it is changed, and the wild 
maniac comes to his right mind, and follows Him who 
leads captivity captive. Now, we are not to be mis- 
understood, as though we taught, that a man is saved 
by a kind of physical compulsion. He is saved con- 
trary to what was his luill^ and ivish^ and desire^ and 
inclination of hearty before the Spirit renewed his mind. 
In this sense, he is saved against his ivilL But in the 
work of drawing him, by the power of his Holy Spirit, 
God " worketh in him both to will and to do;" God, 
of Ms good pleasure^ ivorheth loth the willing and the 
doing. That is, the Holy Ghost, by his almighty 
power, renewing the mind, changes the will ; so that 
he, who at first resisted, now ceases to resist; he who 
at first refused to do, and to come, now becomes active 
and laborious in running the race set before him. 

3. The intellectual inability of man, is proved by 
the scripture doctrine of the Spirit's illumination. 
ii. Cor. iv. 6. " God who commanded the light to shine 
out of darkness hath shined in our hearts, to give the 
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face 
of Jesus Christ." Hence, ^'the Spirit of wisdom and 
revelation in the knowledge of him," is given by the 
Father, Eph. i. 17. Previously to which gift of the 
Spirit, ^'ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye 
light in the Lord," chap. v. 8. " This is the anoint- 
ing which ye have received of him — and ye need not 
that any man teach you." 1 John iii. 27. ''But the 
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
will send in my room, he shall teach you all things." 
John xiv. 26. ''for he shall receive of mine, and shall 
show it unto you." xvi. 14. 

From these passages it is evident, (1.) That the 
mind of man is in a state of spiritual darkness. 
(2.) That it remains, and will remain so, until the 
Spirit of God give light or knowledge. (3.) That this 
giving of light and knowledge, is by a divine influence, 
analagous to that by which the light at the first crea- 
15* 



174 INABILITY ACCORDING 

tion, was produced, and made to shine. As to all 
spiritual, saving knowledge of the truth, the mind, is 
like the chaos, before the eternal fiat ''let there be 
light." Darkness covers the earth, and gross dark- 
ness the people. In this state, it is impossible for 
man to understand — he cannot discern the things of 
the Spirit. 

I know it is affirmed, that man has the eye — the 
organ of vision, and therefore, he has the ability to 
see, although he has no light. Only remove the ob- 
structing window shutters, and the prisoner in the 
dungeon sees; he therefore had the ability to see 
before. 

Let us not deceive ourselves or others. It is not 
true, that a man who has an' eye in a sound state, has 
ahility to see ; it is false, in fact. Without light, he 
cannot see ; he is not ahle to see ; he has not ahility to 
see. It is not true either, in point of fact, that a man 
who has a sound eye, and light also, can see all things, 
which are perceptible, even by other eyes. The myops 
can behold near objects clearly, and not distant ones 
— he is not able to see afar off; so a man may be ahle 
to see, with the mental eye, some things, who cannot 
see other things. Ability is the adaptation of the 
cause to produce the effect. The eye of the myops is 
adapted to produce the effect of vision as to near, but 
not as to distant, objects. The mind's eye of the natu- 
ral man, is adapted to be the cause of mental vision, 
as to natural, but not as to spiritual things. Mental 
ability to understand a mathematical demonstration 
may exist, where there is an ability of mind to com- 
prehend the beauties of a painting, a poem, or a piece 
of music. To affirm, that this man of abstractions is 
able to understand and perform music, to write epic, 
or to pencil the canvass into life, is to assert an un- 
truth. Just so, to affirm, that he '' that lacketh these 
things," — the Christian graces of faith, virtue, know- 
ledge, &c., (2 Pet. i. 6, 9,) — can see spiritually, is to 
contradict the express declaration of scripture, which 
is, that he ''is blind and cannot see afar off." " Thou 
blind Pharisee." "Ye blind leaders of the blind." 



TO THE BIBLE. 175 

Either, therefore, there is in the unrenewed mind, an 
incompetency, an incapacity, an inability to under- 
stand the things of the Spirit ; or the whole language 
of the Bible on this subject is adapted to deceive us: 
and the fact of restoring sight to the naturally blind, 
is not intended to teach us our need of the same 
divine power to recover the soul to spiritual vision. 

But I wish to present this as a distinct argument. 

4. The miracles of healing, performed by the Sa- 
viour, are designed to teach men their need of super- 
natural power, for the restoration of the soul to a state 
of holy spiritual life. Particularly, the restoration of 
sight is adapted, and intended to teach the doctrine 
for which we contend. ''For judgment, I am come 
into this world ; that they which see not, might see ;" — 
''I am the light of the world: he that foUoweth me, 
shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of 
life." Surely, no one can read these, and such as 
these, without imbibing the conviction, that the Bible 
inculcates the doctrine of man's native blindness of 
mind, and his utter inability to understand the things 
of God, until the day star of supernatural illumination 
shines into his mind. Bartimeus was not less able to 
see the multitude as they passed by, than the most 
learned Pharisee was to discern spiritual things. 
Lazarus was not less able to come forth out of the 
tomb, before the divine jjoiver restored him to life, 
than the ''blind Pharisee," to understand the doc- 
trines of salvation. 

Now, we need only farther remark, concerning this 
intellectual defect or mental inability, to understand 
the things of the Spirit, that it is, according to Dr, Ed- 
wards^ a ncitiiral inability^ an impeding defect, or 
obstacle, extrinsic to the will, in the faculty of under- 
standing. 

It is sometimes objected to this, that the defect itself 
cannot be pointed out, and, consequently, the thing 
done, when this inability is removed, cannot be ex- 
plained. What is the deficiency, where does it lie, 
and how is it removed ? What faculty has a renewed 
sinner, that is not possessed by the impenitent? 



176 INABILITY ACCORDINa 

What is done to enable, to give capacity to understand, 
spiritual things ? 

To all these, we answer ; that they are founded on 
our ignorance and may easily be retorted. What 
faculty had the lame man after he was healed, that he 
had not before ? Was there added a bone, muscle, or 
tendon to his bodily frame ? What was done to him ? 
It is manifest, that ignorance of the change, and the 
mode of its production are no proof against the fact. 

The blind man knew nothing, but that " he put clay 
upon mine eyes and I washed and do see — how he 
opened mine eyes I know not." But, the fact of 
spiritual illumination is just as perfectly well known 
to the subject of it, as the fact of natural restoration 
to sight. And all pious men, of all sects, acknowledge 
a difference, and refer it to the Spirit of God. 

3. The moral powers of the soul are paralysed by 
the fall. 

We have seen with Edwards and Locke, that to 
ascribe inability to the will, is philosophically absurd : 
and yet, wise men do so speak. We must, therefore, 
exercise due caution, or we shall entirely misunder- 
stand them. By inahility of will^ is meant, simply, 
unwillingness or disinclination. Now, that man is 
unwilling — that he is disinelined to holy things, none 
deny. This, the state, and the almost universal prac- 
tice of the race most sadly testify. Who needs proof 
of it? Who asks for evidence to show, that man is 
inclined to evil as the sparks do ascend ? There is 
no room for doubt, and can be no need of proof here. 
Everyman's eyes and inward consciousness are suffi- 
cient for him. 

But it may be of some consequence to see the con- 
nexion of this with the preceding. The will is the 
mind choosing : and choice implies motive in view. 
To choose without a motive influencing to choice, is 
not conceivable. Now, the motive to an act of choice 
is, as we have seen, some apprehended good, to which 
the mind is drawn by its apprehension or view of it as 
a good. The motive is the thing, as it is seen or per- 
ceived hy the mind. When a child, or a man^ being 



TO THE BIBLE. 177 

offered an orange of wax, supposing it a real orange, 
and a real apple, chooses the orange, the motive of the 
choice, is not a waxen orange, but a real orange ; the 
deception and mistake, has given a reality to the mo- 
tive in the mind, which did not exist in the thing. The 
power, therefore, of any thing, as a motive, depends 
upon the mind's present view and estimate of it. But 
it is clear, that this view and estimate depend wholly, 
upon the mind's powers of perception, and these, upon 
the organs and medium. To illustrate: The waxen 
ball, being painted so as to resemble an orange, pro- 
duces, through the. organ of vision, a belief, that it is 
an orange, and thus, choice is determined. The waxen 
ball is. chQsen and the real apple is rejected. But 
change the organ of perception ; let the smell and the 
feeling be brought to bear ; then the mind's appre- 
hension and belief are changed, and these change 
also, the choice — the will is to take the apple. Dark- 
ness then in the understanding — ignorance in the mind 
- — inability of intellect, most materially affects motives 
and choice. 

Now, if, as some have supposed, the mind had a 
power to act contrary to motive, it would manifestly 
not be a moral being at all: for the very essence of 
morality is a capacity to be influenced to action by 
considerations of right and wrong. If a rational mind 
could act without motive, which to me, appears a con- 
tradiction in terms, it would certainly not be a moral 
act. If, as I suppose, it belongs to the very essence 
of reason and morality, to be actuated by motives; 
and if motives are the mind's views of things, it is easy 
to perceive, how the understanding is the governing 
faculty: and the understanding being blinded by sin, 
and its corrupting lusts, it is easy to see, how the en- 
lightening of the mind, must lead to the sanctification 
of the affections, and rectification of the will. There 
is no possible — no conceivable way of changing the 
human will, but by changing the views which the 
mind has of the subject matter before it. The will 
cannot be forced. You can induce the child or man, 
to prefer the apple to the orange, that is, to a change 



178 INABILITY ACCORDINa 

of will, only by a change of motive. And how is this 
effected, when the subject matter before the eye is the 
very same ? If the subject matter before the mind 
is the same, there can be no change of will; but if 
you inform the hungry child, that the orange is not an 
orange, and cannot be eaten, but that the apple is a 
delicious reality; you place a new motive before the 
mind and the consequence is, a new choice — a change 
of will. Other mode of access to the Avill there is 
none, but through the understanding. What men 
have been accustomed, unphilosophically, to call in- 
ahility of willy is nothing more or less, than simply, 
"a defect of motives," "a want of sufficient motives 
to induce, or excite the act of the will," that is, to in- 
duce the mind to a choice. But as choice may, and 
often does occur, without any moral character, as 
when I choose between figures and letters in number- 
ing chapters — it is obvious, that the inability of mind 
to choose holy things, lies in the want of moral mo- 
tives : i. e. in spiritual blindness ; in the loss or de- 
rangement of the powers of moral perception. This 
I have not been able in the previous discussion, to 
keep entirely separate from the idea of intellectual 
inability : yet I trust we have had (Chap. i. s. vii.) 
full evidence, that a moral sense or power of percep- 
tion there is, and that this is the basis of moral agency. 
Now it is the derangement of the mind, by sin, which 
affects this power of perceiving right and wrong, that 
enfeebles or destroys the force of moral motives. Un- 
renewed and renewed men, look at the same subject 
matter; but their moral perceptions are quite diffe- 
rent; and therefore their motives are quite different; 
the things actually seen by their minds are different ; 
and by necessity, different effects must be produced 
upon them. The one sees ''a root out of a dry 
ground," in which there is ''no form nor comeliness;" 
the other sees one ''altogether lovely :" by the for- 
mer, he must be despised and rejected, who is by the 
latter loved and embraced. Whilst such are the views 
of the individuals, respectively, such must be their 
choice and conduct : it is impossible to be otherwise. 



TO THE BIBLE. 179 

Their moral perceptions must be changed before it is 
possible their volition should change. Now the pre- 
cise thing we insist on here, is, that no human power, 
no created power can change the moral perceptions 
of sinful man. He is unable to change himself. 
'' The Ethiopian cannot change his skin, nor the leo- 
pard his spots." None but the creating — the regene- 
rating energies of God's almighty Spirit can change 
the mind, so as to enable man that is blind to see God's 
light clearly. Here then lies the moral inability of 
man; not in the will, for the supposition is nonsense; 
but in the want of adequate powers of moral percep- 
tion; the moral sense is prostrated: the mind is un- 
able to discriminate between good and evil, triith and 
falsehood, right and wrong, God and Mammon, Christ 
and Belial. Not that it can perceive no difference ; 
for we admit that it can ; but it cannot appreciate in 
any tolerable degree, the excellence of truth, and the 
glory of its Author, on the one hand ; and the base- 
ness of falsehood, and degradation of vice, on the 
other. Nor is it to be supposed, that man has the 
adequate faculties for this moral perception, and wants 
only the moral light. Just the reverse is the case ; 
the moral light shines about him ; but his powers of 
vision are gone : he walks in darkness whilst the noon 
tide splendours of the sun of righteousness pour all 
around him. He gropes for the way and stumbles 
over the very rock of ages, into the slough of de- 
spond. Wretch that he is ! he must ever remain so, 
for any relief that can spring from earth. Onward 
he totters toward the gulph of eternal despair, and 
soon must he plunge in, and buffet the fiery flood, un- 
less the Father of mercies cry to the Son of his love. 
^'Let there be light," and the Spirit of all grace 
shines into his heart to give the light of the knowledge 
of the glory of God. 

This change in the mind is effected by the divine 
power : it is supernatural. Created agency may be 
employed as a means, or instrument, but the power 
is from God alone. It is the same power as that by 
which Christ was raised from the dead. 



180 INABILITY ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. 

Such is the Bible doctrine of inability. What are 
its practical tendencies and effects ? 

1. To awake the sin secure soul, who feels that he 
can repent and be saved, whenever he pleases, to a 
sense of his lost and ruined state. The thought is 
awful, and leaves no rest in the mind. Lost, and no 
help ! No power in me, or any creature to save me ! 
How dreadful ! 

2. To stain the pride of all human glory : to bring 
down the lofty looks of man : to make all men feel 
themselves less than the least of God's mercies. 

3. To produce that state of feeling dependence on 
divine power and grace, which is indispensable, as the 
antecedent of forgiveness of sins through the blood of 
atonement. 

4. To exalt the condescension and law of God in 
the apprehension of the humbled sinner. He only 
who feels himself absolutely helpless, will surrender 
himself to sovereign mercy and grace. He only who 
feels himself already sinking under the billows of a 
justly incensed indignation, will exclaim in tones of 
piercing aigony, " Lord save me, or I perish." 

5. To place the crown of glory on the only head 
worthy to wear it. ^^Not unto us, Lord, not unto 
us, but unto thy name, give glory, for thy mercy and 
for thy truth's sake." Ps. cxv. 1. 



181 



CHAPTER XIL 



THE GOSPEL BEVEALS THE ONLY EFFECTUAL REMEDY 
FOR THE EVILS OF THE BROKEN COVENANT. 



We have looked into the great general principles of 
moral government, as established by the Creator, and 
revealed in the sacred Scriptures. 

We have examined, in considerable detail, the spe- 
cial modifications of that government, as it was ex- 
tended over man, in his primitive condition. 

We have discussed the question of the extent of the 
covenant made with Adam, and the representative 
character which he sustained. 

We have settled the meaning of certain terms, im- 
portant in this discussion— Just, Righteous, Right- 
eousness, Justify, Justification. 

We have inquired what was requisite to Adam's 
justification, according to the terms of the covenant, 
and have found one thing only, necessary, viz : 
Righteousness, conformity of his conduct with the 
law. 

We have contemplated the fact, that he violated 
his covenant engagement, disobeyed God; and conse- 
quently, incurred the penalty, which constitutes an 
additional requisite in order to his justification. 

We have examined the phj^sical, intellectual, and 
moral consequences of Adam's sin upon himself, and 
his posterity. 

We have canvassed the fundamental doctrine of 
original sin, including the general doctrine of imputa- 
tion. 

We have attempted an exposition of that difficult, 
and very important portion of the divine word, con- 
16 



182 THE GOSPEL REVEALS A REMEDY. 

tained in Rom. v. 12 — 21, as an argument upon this 
great doctrine. 

We have deduced, from the case of those who die 
in infancy, an argument for the same doctrine. 

We have seen the utter inability of man, in his fallen 
state, to meet the requirements of law, and there- 
by, to restore himself to the favour of God : in which 
we have examined the metaphysical distinction of 
ability into moral and natural. 

The result of this discussion and examination, is, a 
thorough conviction, that man is fallen, ruined, lost, 
and totally powerless in himself; an outcast from God 
and heaven, and helplessly undone, by the broken 
covenant of works. 

We are now prepared to enter upon the most impor- 
tant question of a remedy. How shall the fearful 
calamities consequent upon sin, be obviated? Is there 
a possibility of man's escape from the just and legal 
consequences of his transgression, and of his receiving 
the blessings and the benefits originally proffered as 
the reward of obedience ? The original law given to 
him, which was ordained unto life, and which was so 
adjusted that obedience to it, must be followed by life, 
but where transgression has been found, unto death — 
can it yet be restored and fulfilled, and thus life be 
still secured to lost man? Is there any where, an 
arm almighty to save? Can man yet be just with 
God? ^ 

Our theme is the affirmative response: ^'for behold 
I bring unto you good tidings of great joy, which 
shall be unto all people; for unto you is born, in a 
city of David, the Saviour, which is Christ the Lord/' 
A remedy is revealed in the Bible. 

SECTION I. 

THE GOSPEL, A P^EMEDIAL LAW. 

By the gospel being a remedial law, is meant, that 
the scheme of redemption revealed in the Bible, pro- 
fesses to counteract the evils, resulting from a former 
3cheme ; to make amends for its violation; to provide 



THE GOSPEL, A REMEDIAL LAW. 183 



a remedy for the moral diseases introduced through 
its agency ; and so to '' heal the hurt of the daughter 
of my people." 

The evidence may be found in the professed design 
of the Saviour. He came to fulfil all righteousness — 
to seek and to save that which was lost — to heal the 
sick — to cleanse those infested with the leprosy of sin 
— to rescue man from the condemnation of the law, 
and to restore him to the favour and enjoyment of 
God — to throw open the prison doors, and to proclaim 
liberty to the captives — to give sight to the blind — to 
make the lame walk, and the tongue of the dumb sing 
for joy. The entire phraseology of scripture shows, 
that the gospel is a remedy for evils consec{uent upon 
some scheme of law, which preceded it. It is not a 
device original, in and of itself; but is manifestly based 
upon the hypothesis of another covenant having pre- 
ceded it, at the head of which, is another Adam, of 
whom this second Adam is the anti-type. The actual 
work accomplished by the Lord from heaven, is reme- 
dial : he restores from the ruins of the fall. 



SECTION II. 

THE GOSPEL, LIKE EVERY REMEDIAL LAW, ESTABLISHES THE FRINCIPLE 
OF THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTE. 

This is implied in the term, by which I have express- 
ed the idea. To speak of remedying a defect, sup- 
poses the continuance of the thing in which it exists. 
In human legislation, an original statute defines its 
object, and the principle by which it proposes to ac- 
complish it. The general law for the establishment 
of schools in a couMnonwealth, specifies its object — the 
education of the entire mass of the people : it also 
settles the great principle upon which it shall be done. 
This is an original statute. But many defects may 
be developed in the application of its detail. These, 
it may be possible to cure, without abandoning either 
the object or the general principle by which it is pro- 
posed to secure it. Subsequent laws may correct the 



184 THE GOSPEL^ A REMEDIAL LAW. 

defects, and all such laws are remedial^ and in onr 
legislation are called supplements. Should the legis- 
lature hereafter determine to abandon the object, or 
the principle, they must pass a repealing act. But 
moral laws connot be repealed, even by a divine ordi- 
nance. They are an expose of the divine perfections^ 
and are eternal like their author; and hence the rea- 
son why the Imv given to Adam, could never be re- 
pealed, abrogated or set entirely aside.* It is a moral 
law, and can no more be changed, than God himself, 
of whose perfections it is a transcript. By a change 
in man, it has wrought death, and must continue to 
work death^ unless the omniscient Legislator provide 
a remedy. The law, he can never repeal : a supple- 
ment remedial he has revealed in his holy word* The 
obligation upon Adam and his race, to obey God, as 
we have seen, never can cease : the motive to obe- 
dience, held out in the promise of life, never can be 
withdrawn. " If thou wilt have life^ keep the com- 
mandments.'' The gospel does not make void the 
law; ''God forbid! yea, we establish the law.'' But^ 
^'what the law could not do, in that it was weak 
through the flesh— by man's failure—God sending his 
own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, 
condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of 
the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after 
the flesh, but after the Spirit." So far, therefore, 
from the gospel being an original law, defining and 
fixing its own principles, irrespective of any pre- 
existing scheme or system of law, it is simply a reme- 
dial scheme, designed to confirm, and establish the 
eternal principles of right, laid down in the law and 
covenant given by his Creator to man. Material 
things are subject to mutation. Earth's surface may 
be the theatre of ten thousand ever shifting scenes, 
whose last drama may be a renovated world, emerging 
from a deluge of fire. Material suns and systems 
may be blotted out of existence ; but God's law is im- 
mutable as his ovfn eternal throne. " Think not that 

* See (iray's Mediatorial Reign, p. 144. 



THE GOSPEL, A REMEDIAL LAW. 185 

I am come to destroy the law or the prophets : I am 
not come to destroy, but to fulfil ; for verily I say 
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one 
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful- 
filled." It is not denied, that the law here includes 
the Mosaic writings, and the prophets, but it is un- 
questionably true, that the main substance of the 
whole, is the moral law^ which is interspersed through- 
out the Scriptures. 

The truth of our second position will be, if possible, 
more clearly manifested by reference to the fact, that 
the gospel reveals no new moral principle — prescribes 
no rule of action different from the moral law. 

New motives to holy action, new views of God's 
benevolent character, it does indeed present. But 
the impulsive power of these, is not in a difi*erent, but 
in the very same direction, as the previous moral sys- 
tem. Gratitude and love are presented in a new and 
stronger light ; but they are not new duties ; they were 
of old, even from the beginning, binding upon man. 
In the progress of this discussion, we shall see, that 
every leading doctrine of the new covenant, was pre- 
viously in operation in the old; that the covenant of 
works involves all the elements, whose application, in 
the covenant of grace, is productive of so many bless- 
ings to man, and so much glory to God. 

It may be suggested, that faith and repentance are 
duties enjoined in the gospel: and it maybe asked, 
are they not peculiar to the gospel? Were men, before 
its promulgation, called upon to believe and repent? 

As to faith, it may be remarked, in reply, that the 
general principle is a part of the moral law of man's 
creation. It is as much a part of man's nature, to 
believe in testimony, as to perceive truth, and to rea- 
son about it ; to love his fellows and himself. The 
gospel requires the exercise of the principle of faith, 
in reference to a new testimony ; and it makes provi- 
sion for the renewal of the mind, by which, the man 
is enabled to such exercise. But it introduces only a 
new modification of that trust and confidence in God, 
which has always been obligatory on man. 
16* 



186 THE GOSPEL PROVISION, 

Repentance is not a moral principle at all: it is the 
turning of the heart, the mind, the soul, the man from 
sin to God. It consists essentially, in the action of 
the man : and, as a moral action, may be resolved into 
hatred of sin, which is only a form of holy feeling — 
the reaction of love to God and holiness: and that 
love itself, called into action by faith's view of the 
bleeding cross. Every one of its elements, may be 
found in the requirements of the moral law. All that 
is new in the duty of repentance, is the peculiar cir- 
cumstances which occasions its exercise. True, if by 
repentance be meant compunction of conscience, and 
sorrow for sin, it might be, with some plausibility, 
aflBrmed to be, a new duty, unknown to the moral 
law. These however, I hope to show, are only ac- 
companiments, at most, and not repentance. Indeed, 
they are not always, even accompaniments ; for they 
often occur, when there is never a true turning of the 
heart to God. 

Let us then, view the gospel as a remedial law — a 
scheme devised by infinite wisdom, to remedy the evils 
resulting to lost man, from the violated covenant, and 
designed, not to abrogate, but to establish its princi- 
ples, and secure its objects. 



SECTION III. 

THE GOSPEL MUST PROVIRE A COMPLETE FULFILMENT OF THE POSITIVE 
PRECEPT OF THE LAW, OR COVENANT OF WORKS. 

In the original institute, the whole substance of 
Hioral obedience was summed up in the single precept 
relative to the fruit forbidden. As the law is a unity, 
and he who offends in one point is guilty of all; so 
when the spirit of obedience is tested in a single point 
only, and confined to that point, a failure here, brings 
upon man the guilt of the whole ; he is liable to the 
whole penalty. Now this was the sum total of the 
law, as a covenant given to Adam, that he should 
obey, and as the reward of obedience should receive 
life. This glorious reward was held up as the motive 



REMEDIAL SCHEME* 187 

prompting to choice on the side of law and right. 
The law was ordained unto life. This is its object, 
and to this it was adapted. But it failed in the hands 
of the first Adam, and the second comes in to make 
it good, to establish its principle and secure its object. 
Life, as the reward of active obedience to law, must 
be guaranteed by the surety of this better covenant, 
established upon better promises. And the expan- 
sion of this obedience over ten thousand points, which 
originally was confined to one, does not alter the 
nature of the transaction. It may, indeed, enhance 
its value; as he who is exposed to the possibility of 
failure, in a variety of ways, may be supposed more 
meritorious in his obedience, than he who possibly can 
err in but one. The spirit of subordination to the 
will of God is the same, whether one, or one million 
of acts be the expression of it. " My meat is to do 
the will of him that sent me," said the second Adam, 
and wherever this is the ruling spirit, there the right 
to the reward of life still exists. The remedial scheme 
must reveal this spirit, and develope it in full action 
according to law. 

SECTION IV. 

THE GOSPEL MUST REMEDY THE FAILURE— MUST MAKE AMENDS FOR 
THE POSITIVE EVILS UNDER THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTE. 

Under the administration of the first Adam, sin 
incurred death. The law having been transgressed, 
there was no evasion of its penal claim. The faith- 
fulness of God to his own declaration, was pledged to 
see the sanctions of justice fully carried out. The 
character of his moral government over the universe, 
and even the reality and perpetuity of it, imperiously 
demanded that she should hold an equal balance. 
Disease and death have occurred ; and these most 
especially, demand the interposition of a remedy. The 
law worketh death, and that, by its legitimate and 
necessary action. Now, death and disease must be 
counteracted, before it is possible that the great ob- 



188 COVENANT REPRESENTATION. 

ject of the original institute can be attained. Justice is 
as much concerned in the infliction of merited punish- 
ment, as in the bestowal of merited reward. Clearly 
then, such infliction, where it is merited, must pre- 
cede the bestowment of reward, and hence, the reme- 
dial law must provide an adequate satisfaction to the 
claims of insulted justice. This we shall hereafter 
contemplate under the head of atonement. 



SECTION V. 

THE TWO PRECEDING GRAND REQUISITES IN THE REMEDIAL LAW MUST 
BE SECURED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF THE ORIGINAL INSTITUTE; VIZ: BY 
A COVENANT REPRESENTATION. 

First, this must be done by covenant, that security 
may be given, and confidence won. If there is no 
pledge, promise or guarantee, on the one hand, that 
the evils of sin shall be remedied, and the terms 
of the first covenant fulfilled ; there could be no 
ground on the other, to expect deliverance from con- 
demnation, and security in life. The nature of moral 
government must be changed, if God could grant to 
man, life on any other terms, than had been prescribed 
in the law, and agreed to by man. An arbitrary 
bestowment of life, irrespective of, and in opposition 
to the claims of violated law, w^ould have been a virtual 
abrogation of it, and inconsistent with the very na- 
ture of a remedial scheme. But how there could be a 
remedy by an adequate sacrifice, rendering satisfac- 
tion for sin, without the voluntary action of the sure- 
ty, it is impossible to conceive. If a surety be admit- 
ted at all, it must be by agreement of the party 
ofi*ended, and the person oQ^ered as surety. 

But again, this is necessary, in order to its being 
by representation, according to the original cove- 
nant. Ruin was brought upon the whole race, 
through their connexion with their moral head; so 
the remedy for that ruin must be through the 
agency of their moral head. The great fundamental 
doctrine of all social organization, without which, 
there can be no government of any kind;, of man 



DEDUCTIONS. 189 

over man — the doctrine of representation, and of 
consequent imputation, stands out in bold relief and 
luminous prominence, upon the whole front of that 
moral constitution, originally given to man. This 
must appear also, with a correspondent prominence, 
upon the front of that magnificent structure which the 
Son of God is erecting to the praise of his glorious 
grace. It was never designed, in the former case, 
that human persons, all and each should be insulated, 
and stand firm, here one, and there another; or 
should fall on the right hand, and on the left. Such 
a scheme would have left man essentially unsocial, 
and peopled a world with spirits of precisely opposite 
characters. On the contrary, God made man social ; 
and stamped this character on his constitution : and 
in the representative doctrine of the covenant of 
works, we have the elemental principle of all social 
relations. By this is man attached and united to his 
fellow : he is made dependent, as to his moral desti- 
nies, and social interests, upon the action of his moral 
head : and thus a necessity exists, perpetually, in his 
very nature, for society. Now, the gospel discovers 
to us no design to interfere with this tendency, but it 
uniformly promotes it. It furnishes, as the detail will 
evince more fully, a moral head to that immense mul- 
titude, who shall stand ultimately before the throne of 
Messiah, and " go away into life eternal.'' It puts 
into the safe-keeping of this glorious Head, the moral 
destinies of the body. It sets him forth as bearing a 
representative relation to his people, both in his ac- 
tive obedience; the fulfilment of all the holy precepts 
of law ; and in his extinguishing its penal claim. Al- 
ways, and every where, Jesus is represented as obey- 
ing, sufi'ering, dying, rising, ascending, and reigning, 
for his people. 

In concluding this chapter, let us remark, 
1. It is vain to expect, by philosophical research, 
to discover any new principles in morals. Even the 
revelation of Jesus Christ, is but the modified appli- 
cation of that morality, which was of old, even from 
everlasting. 



190 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

2. The doctrine of Neo-nomianism, or that which 
aflSrms under the gospel, a new law of grace, reduced 
in the severity of its demands to the present capaci- 
ties of men, is without foundation in the word of God. 
There is not even a partial abrogation of the demands 
of justice. 

3. We learn hence, how to value the doctrine of 
God's covenant with man : it contains the substance 
of all moral rule. 

4. The importance of possessing that revelation, 
which makes known the only remedy. Where there 
is no such vision, the people perish. 

5. How solemn the obligation upon all who have 
it, to let it be known in all the earth ! " How beau- 
tiful upon the mountains are the feet of him, that 
bringeth good tidings !" 



CHAPTER XIII. 

THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

In treating of the general idea of a covenant, we 
had occasion to remark, that it consists of three parts, 
viz : the parties, the terms, the agreement. These 
all, we found, when discussing the covenant of works, 
or that which God established with Adam ; and these 
all, we shall find in the following inquiry into the 
covenant of grace. 

The distinction of the divine constitution for man's 
salvation into the covenant of redemption and the 
covenant of grace, was very common among the older 
Calvinistic divines. By the covenant of redemption, 
they meant what, in the following sections, we mean 
by the covenant of grace : and by this latter they 
meant, the application of it to the believer in his con- 
version, when he consents, under the workings of the 
Spirit, and yields himself obedient to God. Is. Iv. 3, 



THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 191 

'' I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even 
the sure mercies of David/' JVow^ the phrase is 
usually applied as follows. There is no difference in 
sentiment, but only in the application of the phrase. 



SECTION I. 

THE parties; god, the father, and JESUS CHRIST, THE SON, 

^'I have made a covenant with my chosen." Psalm 
Ixxxix. 3. This passage is primarily applicable to 
the son of Jesse, but principally to " David's greater 
son." Who is meant here, by God's chosen or elect, 
is manifest from the language of Isaiah, Ixiv. 1, 
^' Behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect — or 
chosen one — in whom my soul delighteth." Which 
passage is applied (Math. xii. 18 — 20,) to Jesus, our 
mediator : And in Isa. Iv. 3, " Incline thine ear, and 
hearken unto me ; hear and your soul shall live ; and 
I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even 
the sure mercies of David; that is, of the beloved one.'' 
Here we have the language of gospel invitation to the 
sinner : God, the Father, invites him to come, that he 
may be brought actually into the covenant of his own 
beloved Son, and partake of its blessedness. This 
gives us incidental evidence (which is the strongest 
kind of evidence) of the existence of such covenant : 
and it is called, ''the sure mercies of the Beloved One," 
to intimate the relation which the Beloved sustains to 
it as surety, and the consequent permanency of the 
covenant, and safety of those who are actually brought 
into it. 

This language, " I have made a covenant w^ith my 
chosen" also intimates, as Mr. Boston remarks, "the 
party proposer — though he was the party offended, 
yet the motion for a covenant comes from him. The 
Father of mercies beholding a lost world, his bowels of 
mercy yearn towards the objects that his sovereign 
pleasure pitches upon: and that mercy seeks a vent 
for itself, that it may be shown to the miserable." 
Body of Divinity, vol. ii. 4, 30. 



192 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 

When this covenant is presented anew to Abraham, 
the blessing of salvation which it goes to secure, is 
said to have been "confirmed of God in Christ." Gal. 
iii. 17, and the same Apostle assures us, that its esta- 
blishment was prior to the existence of the world. 
Titus i. 2, 3. " In hope of eternal life, which God, 
that cannot lie, promised before the world began ; but 
hath in due time manifested his word through preach- 
ing." How God should promise "eternal Vd^ before 
the world began," on any other hypothesis than that 
of a compact, agreement, covenant, with the Son, on 
the behalf, and for the benefit of his people, it is to 
me impossible to conceive. 

A similar testimony we have in Eph. i. 4. "Accord- 
ing as He [God the Father] hath chosen us [all believ- 
ers] in him, [Jesus Christ] before the foundation of 
the world." Here is the exercise of electing love, 
prior to creation. So in Rev. xiii. 8. and xvii. 8. 
" Their names were written, before the foundation of 
the world, in the book of life of the slain Lamb." The 
former of these texts, for want of a point after slain, 
is equivocal, and, therefore, some suppose it refers the 
slaying of the Lamb, to a period anterior to the world's 
creation ; whereas, the plain and obvious intention, in 
both, is, to refer the writing of their names in the 
Lamb's book of life, to a period before creation ; that 
is, they were chosen in Christ, before the world was : 
the promise in the covenant of grace, existed before 
creation. To whom was the promise made ? There 
was, as yet, no man; so far as we know, no angel. 
The conception of a promise, implies ^ personio whom 
it is given — to whom there is a pledge of veracity. To 
suppose a promise, without two persons at least, 
appears to me, preposterous. The idea of writing 
their names in the Lamb's book of life, implies that 
the Lamb, i. e. Christ, the second person of the God- 
head, so furnished by God, as to be capable in due 
time of sufi'ering, did then exist, and had a book of 
life. 

The confirming of a covenant, of or by God, in 
Christ; before the promulgation of the laW; implies 



THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 193 

that there was a covenant, prior to the law — a better 
covenant than that given to Adam, and than that 
given to Moses, — better, because established upon 
better promises; even the pledged veracity of God, 
who cannot lie. 



SECTION II. 

THIS COVENANT IS GRACIOUS, BECAUSE ETERNAL. 

The benefits of this covenant are all gratuitously 
bestowed. Man, upon whom they are conferred, has 
no claim of right, in himself, to them. That which is 
not, can have no attributes, no claims, no .rights. 
Man did not exist, and yet a covenant was made 
between God, the Father, and God, the Son, which 
guaranteed to men unspeakable blessings — eternal 
consolations. Is it possible to conceive of any thing 
more perfectly beyond the reach of human merit — 
more purely the fruit of simple benevolence, on the 
part of God? It is ''an everlasting covenant," not 
only in reference to its results, and extension into 
the future, but in reference to the past ; it is eternal; 
it existed before the world was. ''I was set up," says 
the wisdom of God, that is, the Messiah, ''I was set 
up — I was anointed — from everlasting, from the be- 
ginning, or ever the earth was." Prov. viii. 23. This 
anointing of the Son as a covenant head, is the same 
as the confirming of the covenant of God in Christ. 



SECTION III. 

THE TERMS. 

First^ The stipulation on the part of God, the Fa- 
ther; or the things which the Son was required to do. 
Every covenant must be proposed by one party ; and 
each of the terms must be suggested first, by one. 
The Scriptures represent the Father as originating 
this covenant. Its source is his everlasting love ; the 
pure fountain of his own boundless benevolence. 
17 



194 THE TERMS. 

Hence, the apostolic benediction speaks of the love of 
God. Now, the proposition of the Father is, that the 
Son shall fulfil his Father's will, in saving lost men. 
This can be effected, only by fulfilling all the law, 
under whose penalty the scheme of redemption con- 
templates the objects of mercy. This scheme is reme- 
dial : and, as we have seen, must meet the penal, and 
the preceptive claims of law. Two things, therefore, 
are required of this surety : 1. he must suffer whatever 
is included in the law's demand against his principal. 
He must pay the debt of his people's iniquities. 2. He 
must accomplish the righteousness required of Adam; 
he must fulfil the precept. 

^'But further," says Witsius, (i. 249.) expressing 
the same truth, ''as Mediator and Surety^ he is under 
the law, in another manner, and that two ways. 1. As 
enjoining the condition of perfect obedience, upon 
which he and his, were to partake of happiness. 2. As 
binding to the penalty due to the sins of the elect, 
which he had taken upon himself." These are the 
two items, which the original iiistitute make indispen- 
sable to the justification of fallen Adam, and his pos- 
terity : and, consequently, the remedial scheme must 
meet them both. 

Secondly. The restipulation^ on the part of the Son, 
viz. That the reward of life to all his people, for whom 
he is Surety, shall be given to them through him, and 
the glory of their salvation, shall be his. This is the 
valuable consideration, on the part of the Father, 
which constitutes the whole transaction, a compact or 
covenant. The Father proposes, and promises this 
reward. This, too, is indispensable as the basis of 
moral confidence. Correspondent to this promise of 
the Father, is the Son's engagement to fulfil all 
righteousness. Thus, there is a mutual pledge, pro- 
mise, or guarantee and security, that the things to be 
accomplished by the covenant, shall not fail. 

Let us not however, suppose, that this, like contracts 
among men, results from a feeling of want. Fair 
covenants with us, must be productive of mutual ad- 
vantages. The design is, to accomplish some useful 



THE AGREEMENT. 195 

purpose. The intent and purpose of this covenant, is 
to exhibit the divine perfections, and thus, to secure 
a revenue of glory to God, whilst it dispenses infinite 
blessings to man. To speak of gain to God, absolutely, 
is improper; because he is infinite in all perfections, 
and increase or diminution, in regard to him, are ideas 
wholly inapplicable. Yet, we may speak, and often do 
speak, of increasing the glory of God. Glory is the 
manifestation of excellence, and such manifestation, 
or display does admit of degrees, even in reference to 
the Creator. Just in proportion, as the attributes of 
the divine character are expressed in his works of crea- 
tion and providence, does the glory of God increase. 
Now, the covenant, of which we speak, guarantees and 
promises the manifestation of God's love, in a manner 
and degree, not elsewhere to be found; and, therefore, 
the interests of his glory, are greatly promoted by it. 
We may scarcely allude to a penalty, where the 
covenanting parties are both absolutely infallible. 
Penal sanction implies the possibility of failure ; and, 
therefore, we may not ask, what must have been the 
consequences to Christ and his people, had he failed. 
It is obvious, that he could never have arisen from the 
dead, nor his people with him. But it is not wise to 
reason from hypotheses, impossible in themselves, and 
we forbear. 



SECTION IV. 

THE AGREEMENT. 

The principle, that mutual consent creates moral 
union, runs deep into the social system of man. The 
laws of eternal right are the only limit to it. What- 
ever is lawful and right to be done, that, two or more 
persons may consent and agree to do: and in the doing 
of it they are one. The voluntary action of the par- 
ties is necessary to any compact, contract, or cove- 
nant. Did the Father and Son consent to carry on 
and complete this glorious scheme of remedy, for a 
ruined race ? Where is the evidence of it ? Let us 



196 THE AGREEMENT. 

turn to Psalm xl. 6-10. " Sacrifice and ofiering thou 
didst not desire: mine ears hast thou opened: burnt 
offering, and sin offering hast thou not required. 
Then said I, Lo, I come ; in the volume of the book 
it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, my 
God, yea thy law is within my heart. I have preached 
righteousness in the great congregation ; Lo ! I have 
not refrained my lips. Lord, thou knowest." Now 
an infallible interpreter tells us, that it is Jesus who 
here speaks. Heb. x. 5. '^Wherefore, when he cometh 
into the world, he saith, sacrifice and offering thou 
wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In 
burnt offerings, and sacrifices for sin, thou hast had 
no pleasure; Then said I, Lo, I come, (in the volume 
of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, God." 
A comparison of these, and an inspection of the 
Apostle's reasoning, must satisfy us, that the Father's 
expressed will was, that the Son should suffer, and that 
the Son acquiesced in the same ; I delight to do thy 
will. Here is mutual consent — the agreement of the 
parties : so that we have here, all the essentials of a 
covenant. 

To the same purport is the declaration of the Lord, 
by Isaiah, (xlii. 6,) where, speaking of his chosen ser- 
vant, who . should not cry nor lift up, nor cause his 
voice to be heard in the street, nor break the bruised 
reed, nor quench the smoking flax, he says, " I will 
keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the peo- 
ple." Jesus is the federal head, with whom the Father 
has established his covenant for his people's salvation. 
Parallel to which passage is, Isaiah xlix. 8, where 
the Father saith of Him, " I will preserve thee, and 
give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish 
the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages ; 
That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth." 
The grand purpose is here stated, to release the pri- 
soners from the chains of sin, to establish the great 
principles of moral government; to remedy the mis- 
chiefs of the fall, by confirming the principles of the 
original institute. 

Hence, Messiah is called the Messenger of the cove- 



THE FULFILMENT OF THE COVENANT. 197 

nant — the one that was sent of God as an ambassa- 
dor. All these, and a thousand other testimonies of 
Scripture, clearly show the consent and co-operation 
of God, our heavenly Father, and Jesus, our divine 
Redeemer, in the glorious federal compact, which 
secures the eternal welfare of all those who believe. 



CHAPTER XIV- 

THE FULFILMENT OF THE COVENANT. 1. ON THE 
PART OF THE LORD'S SERVANT. 2. ON THE FATHER'S 
PART. 

SECTION L 

JESUS DID OBEY ALL THE PRECEPTS OF THE LAW OF GOD, AND THUS 
FULFILLED ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

Preparatory to this, we ought to remark, that in 
the fulness of time, he assumed human nature, in a 
miraculous manner. This was necessary to the work 
he had undertaken. The obedience of man is that to 
which the life of man is promised. An angel's obey- 
ing would not have been the establishment of the ori- 
ginal law; nor could life for man have been claimed 
as the reward of angelic obedience. By man came 
death, and consequently, by man, must come the re- 
surrection from the dead. It was indispensable that 
he have a body, and be in full possession of humanity, 
that he might obey and die for man. 

That he did run the round of human duties, the his- 
tory of his life fully testifies. " He was subject unto 
his parents;" he respected the laws of his country ; 
he punctiliously regarded the laws of God ; he sub- 
mitted to every institution of religion. When John 
*' forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptised of 
17* 



198 CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE. 

thee, and comest thou to me ?" he answering, said unto 
him, " Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us 
to fulfil all righteousness." No duty was he ever 
known to neglect ; no sin was he ever known to com- 
mit; he did no evil, neither was guile found in his 
mouth ; he went about doing-good. 

Of his perfect compliance with the whole require- 
ments of law, the most satisfactory evidence is pre- 
sented, in the testimony of the court, which handed 
him over to the executioner. Every species of malig- 
nity had been at work from the beginning ; and all 
possible ingenuity had been exercised to detect in his 
conduct, some omission, or some actual sin, that 
might lead to his condemnation. But after malignity, 
and genius under its influence, had exhausted their 
efforts, the judge is constrained to declare, when 
delivering him up to the will of his relentless foes, ^'I 
find no fault in him." It was never, even attempt- 
ed to be proved, that he had done any thing contrary 
to the pure and holy law of God. So perfectly had 
his life carried to the understandings of his enemies 
conviction of his spotless purity ; and so fully had it 
overawed their spirits, that no attempt was ever made 
to prove any immorality or impiety against him. 

Hence, an Apostle affirms, that " Christ is the end 
of law for righteousness, to every one that belie veth." 
(Rom. X. 4.) He is the end, or termination of the law 
ceremonial; it is fulfilled in him, and comes to a close, 
and must cease. He is the end at which it aimed, to 
which it constantly directed the eye of faith. He is 
the end, or fulfilment and completion of the moral 
law. All its requirements are met by him. It is a 
transcript of the moral perfections of God — an expres- 
sion of his holy will; and wherever these perfections 
exist, as qualities of the mind, they will show them- 
selves by their accordance Avith the law. But in the 
person of Jesus, all holy properties are found in mea- 
sureless abundance ; and consequently, their perfect 
coincidence with the precepts of the divine law, was to 
have been expected. ''In him dwelt the fulness of 
the Godhead bodily;" as embodied — as incarnate, he 



Christ's obedience, vicarious. 199 



possessed all divine perfections, and consequently, all 
those requisite to a fulfilment of the moral law. 

On this point, I shall not delay ; because the mat- 
ter of fact is so obvious ; and because, no person de- 
nies the truth of it. Even infidelity, in its Pagan, 
Mahommedan and Christian forms, has acknow- 
ledged the spotless, moral character of Jesus our Re- 
deemer. There is a glory and a splendour in the 
Sun of Righteousness, at which the vulture eyes of 
infidelity blench ; on which, only the eagle eye of a 
sanctified faith, can look with unquailing steadfast- 
ness. 



SECTION 11. 

THE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST IS VICARIOUS: OR^ IN OTHER WORDS, HE, 
IN ALL THIS, ACTED FOR HIS PEOPLE, REPRESENTATIVELY. 

On this subject, three opinions have been advanced. 
1. That the obedience or righteousness of Christ, was, 
in no sense vicarious : but on the contrary, that he 
acted simply for himself, as a moral being ; that all 
he did, grew out of, and was necessary to his moral 
relations, and went simply, to meet the requirements 
of law upon himself, personally, and had nothing to 
do, and could have nothing to do, with any other moral 
being ; only, so far as his example might have a moral 
force. This opinion is held by various classes of 
heretics, and the mother of all abominations. 

2. Others maintain, that Christ's righteousness was 
necessary for himself, personally, and also, that he 
acted for his people, in the accomplishment of it. 
They view him, as individually, under the law, apart 
from the consideration of his representative character, 
and of course, bound for himself, to fulfil it : but also, 
that he was under the law, federally, for his people, 
and for them bound to obey. 

This opinion is deemed erroneous ; although not so 
utterly ofl" the foundation of a sinner's hope, as the 
former. It is erroneous, because, (1) Christ never 
existed in his mediatorial character, except as a repre- 



200 CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE, VICARIOUS. 

sentatlve head. His moral headship existed by cove- 
nant, from eternity, and his susception of our nature, 
"was the legal result, and constituted part and parcel 
of the covenant itself. Now, if the God-man — the 
Messiah, never existed in any other character, he 
could never be bound in any other: and consequently, 
his righteousness could not be for himself, but only 
for his people. 

(2) Another phase of the same thought is, that the 
human nature of Christ, never had a separate exist- 
ence; it never was a human person; and, therefore, a 
righteousness for its sake, could not be necessary. 

(3) The Messiah is a divine person, and to speak of 
a divine person being bound to procure righteousness, 
as the title for himself to eternal life, is, at the very 
least, to approximate blasphemy. A divine person 
not entitled to eternal felicity, unless he go through 
certain acts of obedience to law ! The thing is pre- 
posterous. He has '' life in himself," eternally, neces- 
sarily, and unchangeably. For himself he could not 
meint eternal life. A person cannot earn by his 
merits, w-hat he has possessed eternally, and must for- 
ever possess. He needs no such merit ; he can have 
none such. The righteousness of Christ is not, nor is 
it conceivable that it can be the title, by which he 
holds a place in heaven. The fountain of life cannot 
be dependent upon the stream that issues from it, for 
either the beginning, or the continuance of its own 
existence. I therefore, think, that the doctrine here 
rejected, is dangerous. It has been unadvisedly ad- 
mitted, by some sound men, w^ithout, as I fondly hope 
and believe, duly weighing the consequences. Should 
we concede that Christ's righteousness was necessary 
for himself^ I see not how we can maintain by sound 
reason, his Godhead on the one hand against the 
Socinians ; or the imputation of his righteousness on 
the other, against the Pelagians, Arminians and So- 
cinians. 

3. The third opinion is the true evangelical doctrine, 
that Christ's whole righteousness was wrought out for 
his people. Not being in any sense necessary for his 



THE NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. 201 

own justification, in order to life, it goes entire, to the 
benefit of his people. Having never performed an 
act of obedience, in any other character, than that of 
a representative, none others, but his represented ones, 
can possibly be interested in it. But I may not here 
anticipate the doctrine of imputation. 



SECTION III. 



THE NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. 



God is immutably just. Though ^' mercy and truth 
go before him, justice and judgment are the habita- 
tion of his throne." " Shall not the judge of all the 
earth do right?" " Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God 
Almighty." When we apply the idea of necessity to- 
God, of course we do not mean, as the old Romans 
did in reference to Jupiter, any thing without himself, 
as trammeling and preventing the divine action: but 
simply, that such is his unchangeable nature. God 
is necessarily and unalterably holy and just. Right- 
eousness is an essential attribute of his being : and this 
involves his hatred of sin and love of holiness. And 
we maintain, that he can no more cease to hate all 
unrighteousness, and love all righteousness, than he 
can cease to be. Now, the proper expression of this 
hatred of sin is the punishment of it. God is neces- 
sarily the Governor of the vv^orld he made. The idea 
of his ceasing to sustain and govern it, is as great an 
absurdity as the idea of his ceasing to be. So, the 
idea of God, as Governor, neglecting or refusing to 
punish sin according to its desert, as his law defines 
that desert, is an absurdity in morals. Vindictive 
justice is an essential attribute of his being. ^'Is 
God unrighteous who taketh vengeance?" 

Take into connexion with this, the doctrine of ori- 
ginal sin, and the fearful facts of man's history, which 
demonstrate his corruption, and you have the basis 
of this necessity. The whole race have gone astray, 
and " there is not a just man upon earth, that liveth 
and sinneth not." If, therefore, God be essentially 



202 THE NECESSITY OF AN ATONEMENT. 

just, sin cannot go unpunished under his administra- 
tion. ''Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall 
not go unpunished." 

The conception, that Jehovah can pass by, that is, 
pardon sin, as an act of sovereignty, without regard, 
and contrary to the claims of his own justice, is not, 
we suppose, reconcilable with his essential righteous- 
ness. Should such a mode of saving men be admitted, 
then what security has the moral universe ? If the 
head of that universe abandon the claims of justice, to 
let one, two, or millions of guilty persons escape, how 
can it be longer maintained that he is a righteous 
Governor ? And if justice be violated, to lift up the 
polluted and guilty to heaven, may not justice be vio- 
lated, to thrust down the holy and upright to perdition. 

For further proof of this necessity, we refer to what 
is said in a subsequent section, on the sufferings of 
Christ. Either they were necessary, or they were 
not. If they were, then is the above doctrine true : 
if they were not, then how shall we justify God, the 
Father, for putting the dreadful cup to the lips of his 
own Son? 



SECTION IV. 

JESUS DID SATISFY THE PENAL CLAIMS OF LAW FOR HIS PEOPLE I OR 
THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 

1. ^^Atonement: (nw — xarax>.ay>j.) This is the cha- 
racteristic appellation of the doctrine. It occurs 
frequently in our English translation of the Scriptures, 
but only once in the New Testament. The Hebrew 
word which is so translated, signifies a covering. The 
verb means to cover, to draw over; whence it comes, 
by an easy and natural process, to signify to forgive, 
to expiate, to propitiate; that is, to cover an offence 
from the eye of offended justice by means of an ade- 
quate compensation. The term is applied to the 
mercy-seat, which was the lid or covering of the ark 
of the covenant, a divinely appointed symbol closely 
connected with the presentation of sacrifices on the 



ATONEMENT. 203 

day of expiation. The idea that seems to be expressed 
by this word, is that of averting some dread conse- 
quence by means of a substitutionary interposition. 
It thus fitly denotes the doctrine of salvation from 
sin and wrath, by a ransom of infinite worth. The 
Greek word more closely harmonizes with the English 
term atonement. It signifies reconciliation^ or the 
removal of some hinderance to concord, fellowship, or 
good agreement. This is the true import of the term 
AT-ONE-MENT, the act of reconciling or uniting parties 
at variance. ' The next day, he (Moses) showed him- 
self unto them, as they strove ; and would have set 
them AT ONE again, saying. Sirs, ye are brethren ; why 
do ye wrong one to another?' (Acts vii. 26.) Sin has 
placed God and man apart from one another ; all har- 
mony between them has been broken up; and those 
who once dwelt together in perfect concord, have been 
separated and disjoined. What Christ has done has 
had the efi'ect of reconciling the parties; of restoring 
them to a state of one-ness with each other. The 
Deity is at-oned ; God is brought to be at-one with his 
people ; the work of the Redeemer is a proper at-one- 
ment. 'We joy in God, through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, by whom we have received the at-one-ment.' " 
(Symington on Atonement, p. 7.)"^ 

This extract gives a clear and honest exhibition of 
the term atonement: and I will only add, that the 
strict and proper meaning of the word, refers to the 
consequence — the eftect of the death of Christ, rather 
than to the cause whence it proceeds. The reconcili- 
ation is an effect; the satisfaction rendered by the 
blood, death, suff*erings of our Saviour, is the cause. 
It will be important to bear in mind also, that in theo- 

* Since citing the above with approbation, I had occasion to ex- 
amine anew the symbolical signification of the mercy seat; and am 
constrained to believe that it refers, not to the fulfilment of the penal, 
but only of the preceptive claims of the law. There is no penal sanc- 
tion written on the tables within the ark; but only precept. TJie altar 
of burnt offerings typifies Christ as the sufferer, who renders satis- 
faction to the penal claims of the law by his once offering up of him- 
self. The sprinkling of the blood from the altar makes at^pnement. 
[See Lectures on Prophecy. Rev. iv.] 



204 ATONEMENT. 

logical discussions, the former, rather than the latter, 
forms the subject matter of controversy. They who 
deny the penal and vicarious nature of Christ's death, 
do for the most part, admit this reconciliation, as a 
result. The questions at issue, relate to the nature of 
the connexion between the sufferings of the Redeemer 
and the at-one-ment, or bringing together of the par- 
ties who were at-odds ; viz. God and man. 

2. As to the truth, that Jesus did suffer and die, 
there is no dispute : as to the nature and extent of his 
sufferings, there is. Let us look a little into the mat- 
ter ; and (1) as to his whole life. He was born under 
circumstances well adapted to make this world a scene 
of sufferings. He lived amongst a poor and oppressed 
people, and though history is silent on the subject, 
we may well suppose he had at least the ordinary trials 
of such a lot. He could not indeed, be well styled 
"a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief," had 
he lived thirty years, free from great and sore afflic- 
tions, and had his griefs and sorrows been of only three 
years continuance. (2) The next point claiming our 
attention, is Gethsemane. Here, we have evidence of 
extreme anguish — excruciating agony, '' My soul is 
exceeding sorrowful even unto death." "And being 
in an agony, he prayed more earnestly ; and his sweat 
was, as it were, great drops of blood, falling down to 
the ground." It would be difficult to present more 
unequivocal proof, of extreme sorrow, and suffering, 
than is here displayed. How can we account for this 
agonizing exclamation, and this bloody sweat? Can 
it all result from the foresight he had of the shame 
and sufferings, that awaited him on the morrow ? Is 
it nature sinking under the load of contumely and the 
bodily pains which are inseparable from a death by 
crucifixion ? Is not the soul of Jesus sustained by 
the consciousness of rectitude ; and does not conscious 
rectitude give fortitude, and nerve the heart for heroic 
endurance ? Who will charge the Son of God with 
pusillanimity ? It is, therefore, no satisfactory account 
of the facts, to say, that his sufferings are the result 
of aftticipated pains. Did ever the most hardened 



ATONEMENT. 205 

wretcli, with conscience stinging, like ten thousand 
scorpions, sweat blood at every pore? Oh no! To 
suppose that alone, to be the cause of this baptism 
of blood, were to exhibit the Redeemer of the world as 
destitute of heroic fortitude. This cannot be the rea- 
son. And yet there was no visible, no physical cause. 
Some invisible agency there must then have been : 
what was it ? I answer, The foul spirits of hell — the 
leader of the fallen angels and his bands. These were 
permitted by God, to assault him, and try their last 
efforts to turn him from his purpose. What were the 
forms of attack — how malignant spirits operate to 
cause pain to other spirits, we know not. But several 
reasons conduce to the opinion here expressed. And, 
firsts it is an assault most reasonably to have been 
expected. The purpose of Jesus was to die, and 
'^ through death, to destroy him that had the power 
of death, that is the devil." Most reasonably, there- 
fore, might he expect him to put forth one more des- 
perate struggle to maintain his usurped dominion over 
men. Satan summons all his legions and puts the 
issue in a last and fearful assault. ''He shall bruise 
thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Now, what 
might be reasonably looked for, is not without some 
allusion to it in Scripture. 

For I remark again^ Jesus had been led up of the 
spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil: 
and he was tempted. Satan practised many arts to 
lead him aside from the path of duty. "And when 
the Devil had ended all the temptation, he departed 
from him for a season." (Luke iv. 13.) (a;^pi x«»poy) 
until a season. This word rendered /or, properly 
means uiitil^ and is mostly so translated. It marks 
properly, the limit of time. The very same expres- 
sion occurs. Acts xiii. 11. "thou shalt be blind, not 
seeing the sun for a season," — until some period re- 
ferred to: also, Luke i. 20. "thou shalt be dumb, 
and not able to speak until the day that these things 
shall be performed:" and Luke xvii. 27. " they did 
eat, they drank — until the day that Noe entered into 
the ark." " The Devil departed from him until a sea- 
18 



206 ATONEMENT. 

son." What season? If the season of a second assault 
ever occurred, it must be that before us. We have 
no account of any other. The language obviously im- 
plies, that the tempter was again to return, and here 
is the only period to which we can refer his return. 
On this supposition, we see good reason for this sor- 
row unto death ; these sighs and groans, and bloody 
sweat. Foiled in his various attacks; disappointed in 
his malignant attempt to cut oif the babe of Bethle- 
hem ; a hundred times thwarted and forced to abandon 
his ground and leave the subjects of demoniacal pos- 
session ; utterly unsuccessful in his long and laboured 
assault upon Jesus at his entrance upon his public 
ministry, Satan has looked upon the growing interests 
of the Saviour's kingdom, with tormenting anxiety. 
He has marked His steady advance toward the com- 
pletion of his purpose and his work. The more he 
contemplates the perfection of our Redeemer's cha- 
racter, the more does his own malignity lash him up 
to higher and more determined wrath. The nearer 
our Saviour approximates the consummation of his 
work, the more terribly fixed, and desperate, and 
determined becomes the opposition of his deadly foe : 
and now, "the hour is come," and no time is to be 
lost; he, therefore, rallies to the charge all the mighty 
fiends of hell, and down upon the solitary mourner in 
Gethsemane, he pours his malignant legions. Hence 
this sorrow unto death ; hence these sighs, and tears, 
and groans, and bloody sweat; hence this agonizing 
prayer, " Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for 
there is none to help. Many bulls have compassed 
me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round. 
They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a raving 
and a roaring lion." (Ps. xxii. 11.) And hence re- 
sulted the fact before alluded to, "I saw Satan as 
lightning, fall from heaven:" for here was fought 
the sorest, and the last battle. The first onset was 
that Avhich caused mourning in Rama; the second 
general assault was in the wilderness of Judea, and 
the third here, at the very heart of the Redeemer's 
kingdom ; and it consists of three distinct actions, for 



1 



ATONEMENT. 207 

Jesus went and came once and again : after ^Yllich the 
agony ceased and he returned to his disciples, and 
immediately delivered himself up to his fleshly foes. 

The third reference is to the cross. Jesus was 
nailed to the tree and endured unutterable things. 
These may be viewed, in reference to his body and 
his soul. The body of the Redeemer endured what- 
ever of pain and anguish can result from this form of 
death. And it is difficult for us, in this daj^, when 
his blessed gospel has meliorated the condition of all 
men; even of those, who still treat its messages with 
contempt, duly to estimate such sufferings. Now, 
even when justice is most severe and determined in. 
taking vengeance, the execution of her sentence is 
accompanied with many mollifying circumstances. 
The criminal is ordinarily launched upon the un- 
know^n ocean of a vast eternity, in the most easy and 
expeditious manner. The very executioner soothes 
and sympathises with the sufferer. Not so, the sor- 
rows of our Saviour. Nailed fast to the cross, whilst 
his body is in full health and mid-life vigour, he is 
lifted up and suspended by his lacerated hands and 
feet, until worn out vath intense agony, the body dies. 
Scarcely does savage barbarity ever exceed, among 
the most ferocious tribes of wild men, the ingenuity 
of this form of torture. Meanwhile, he is the object 
of profane scoffing and jeers; he is cursed and ridi- 
culed, and refused the most simple and customary 
anodyne, a refreshing drink. Hardly dares the tear 
of sympathy trickle down in silence, and the sigh of 
compassion is smothered, even in the bosom that gave 
him birth. '^ I have trodden the wine press alone, 
and of the people there w^as none with me." 

But we are mingling with his bodily pains, things 
that ought to be viewed separately. The agonies of 
his human spirit, ^' when thou shalt make his soul an 
offering for sin" — these are indeed his sufferings. In 
comparison with these, all his bodily pains are nothing. 
Dreadful as they were, they cannot be compared with 
wdiat his soul experienced. For the contemplation of 
these, we have not much express scripture. This, I 



208 ATOKEMENT. 

think, is designed to prevent us from indulging a too 
curious and minute scrutiny. General ideas only are 
thrown out; to these be our attention confined. Two 
forms of suffering will appear, by an inspection of the 
Scriptures ; viz. the positive goings forth "^of God's 
wrath ; and the withdrawal of all sensible evidences of 
his love. 

God the Father commissions the sword, (Zech. xiii, 
7.) ''Awake, svford, against my shepherd, and 
against the man that is my fellow; saith the Lord of 
Hosts: smite the shepherd." Isaiah xliii., 10. ''It 
pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to 
grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for 
sin;" 2 Cor. v. 21. "He hath made him to be sin for 
ns." That is, he made him a curse, a sin offering, 
Eph. V. 2. "An offering and a sacrifice for sin." 
And by the reply to Peter, "Put up thy sword into 
the sheath; the cup which my Father hath given me^ 
shall I not drink it?" it is manifest, that the sufferings 
were from the Father. "It became God — -to make 
the Captain of salvation perfect through sufferings." 
Heb. ii. 10. 

In view of those texts, it appears to me impossible 
to evade the conclusion, that God's displeasure was 
manifested, his wrath was poured into the cup. Nor 
ought our ignorance as to the manner in which this 
may have been effected, to throw a straw of difficulty 
in the way of our faith. Jesus, as we shall see here- 
after, bore the sins of his people, and God laid on him 
those tokens of his displeasure, which otherwise must 
have fallen upon us. Our inadequacy to comprehend 
what God did ; or hoio he could kindle upon him the 
burning fire, through which he was offered up a burnt 
offering, is no reason at all in the face of the fact, and 
the necessity of the fact. It pleased the Father to 
bruise him; he did bruise him; he did make him to 
suffer: and the bitterest ingredient in the cup, was the 
withdrawal of his countenance. "My God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me." My timnd followers, 
and even Peter, so bold and confident — all have for- 
saken me and fled ; but my Father ! why hast thou 



ATONExMENT. 209 

forsaken me? Thus hangs the man of Calvary; 
abandoned of all men and forsaken of God, bearing 
alone the reproach and the sin of his people, burning 
as a sacrifice in the fire of God's eternal spirit. (Heb. 
ix. 14.) 

Here let us stand still — nor prosecute the vain 
inquiries. How could a holy soul suffer ? Hoay could 
a holy Father inflict it? How much did he suffer? 
Could he suffer enough in so short a space of time, to 
satisfy for all the sins of God's redeemed? Nay, but 
0, vain man ! withhold thy steps, and put off thy shoes 
from off thy feet: this is holy ground. Canst thou 
measure the depths of God's wisdom ? Hast thou a 
measure or a scale to estimate pain, and take an. exact 
account of agonies ? Tell me then, the value of that 
drop, that oozes from his blessed brow, as he lies 
yonder on the cold earth in Gethsemane, and that 
bloody gore, that overtakes it, and mingles as they 
trickle down his blessed face. Tell me the value of 
that heart-bursting sigh — '^if it be possible, let this 
cup pass" — of those crimson streams, from his gracious 
temples, of those flowing currents from his pierced and 
beneficent hands ? What dost thou deem all these to 
be worth? And that agonizing shriek, ''Eli, Eli, 
lama Sabachthani" — Weighed in thy balances. Oh, 
philosopher, what is its worth ? 

But if there is more folly than presumption in any 
attempt at reply; if there is less philosophy than 
piety, then stay thy hand; for ''the Lord is in his 
holy temple, let all the earth keep silence before him." 
Hab. ii. 20. 

3. The magnitude of the Saviour's sufferings, is 
therefore incomprehensible. Whatever was in that 
cup, he drank ; all the requisitions of law, he met : 
we pretend not to define or measure them. This only 
is manifest from the proceeding; they were unutter- 
ably great — unutterable even by himself. Articulate 
speech fails, and the stronger language of sighs and 
groans never could reach, and express the whole truth. 

One other consideration let me present. If bodily 
pains were all the Savioui^ endured — if, as some be- 
18* 



210 ATONEMENT. 

lieve, he experienced no curse—suffered nothing but 
the agonies of body, inseparable from death by cruci- 
fixion; theUj why this great agitation— why this scene 
in Gethsemane? Where is the fortitude of the man 
of Calvary ? Why this complaint- — -this exclamation 
on the cross ? Has Jesus less moral heroism than 
the blaspheming murderer at his side ? If his pains 
were merely bodily, he surely suffers in comparison 
even with thousands of malefactors : he puffers in 
comparison with Stephen and James, Paul and Peter, 
and ten thousand of his martyred disciples, in after 
ages, who endured greater torments than he did, 
and exulted in the same. How many blessed martyrs 
have gone rejoicing to the stake, and poured forth 
their hymns of praise, and their songs of thanksgiving 
from the midst of the burning flame. If, therefore, 
the Redeemer's sufferings were no greater than theirs, 
his fortitude was less, and the very object of them, 
according to those vvho deny their vicarious nature, is 
defeated. If he suffered, merely to give an example of 
patient endurance-^surely it was a failure ! Now, in 
opposition to all this, vve maintain both their vicarious 
nature, and their transcendent magnitude. " See if 
there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow V 

4. The sorrows of the Saviour's life and death, 
were all by appointment of God, the Father. To this 
the texts above quoted, are plain and pertinent. To 
these may be added a few more. Isa. liii. 6. ^' The 
Lord hath laid on him, the iniquity of us all." Acts 
ii. 23, " Him being delivered by the determinate 
counsel and foreknowledge, of God, ye have taken, 
and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Acts 
iv. 27, 28, ''both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with 
the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gather- 
ed together. For to do whatsoever thy hand and 
thy counsel determined before to be done." It is 
surely a work of supererogation to labour the proof 
of a position so plainly taught in the Scriptures. 
Jesus was appointed by the Father to these suffer- 
ings: He put the cup into his Son's hand; and even 
when that Son, with sighs and groans, and tears and 



LEGAL SUBSTITUTION. 211 

bloody sweat, entreated that the cup might pass from 
him, the Father refused to remove it. That so it 
must be, was the Father's will, and it was unchange- 
able. 

5. These sufferings were required by the eternal 
laws of right, or they were not. We present either 
alternative, to all who deny the doctrine of vicarious 
satisfaction by Christ's death. We deem, that other 
alternative, there can be none. That Jesus should 
suffer, was either right, or wrong, not in reference to 
the mere human agency, concerned, but in regard 
to the act of God, in allotting this portion to him. 
In this aspect of the case, no one who accredits the 
Bible, can hesitate. All indeed, but the atheist^ must 
at once, reject the latter. " Shall not the Judge of 
all the earth do right ?" If therefore, it was right in 
God his Father, so to appoint his own Son to suffer, 
we are thrown upon another dilemma, viz : Jesus must 
have been liable, in the eye of the just and holy law 
of God, so to suffer, either on account of his own per- 
sonal sin, or that of others, assumed by him. The 
former to ainrm is blasphemy, the latter leads us 
to— 

SECTION V. 

THE DOCTRINE OF LEGAL SUBSTITUTION. 

1. Substitution is the removal of one thino; and the 
putting of another in its place. The golden shields, 
made by Solomon, and hung up in the temple, were 
removed, and brazen shields were put in their place — 
2vere substituted for them, Saul's armour was substi- 
tuted for David's sling and stone ; but afterwards, 
these were restored. Anciently, chains of iron were 
used for the rigging of ships, and leather for sails ; the 
moderns have substituted cords and canvass. Horses, 
a few years since, were exclusively used to draw car- 
riages with passengers, from one part of the country to 
another; now, to a large extent, steam engines are put 
in their place, are substituted for them. So one man 
is often substituted^ or put in the place of another. 



212 SUBSTITUTION. 

The citizen soldier is allowed, by our laws, to put 
another in his place, in the ranks of his country's de- 
fence ; the latter is substituted for the former. 

2. This change of place, whenever the law covers 
and sanctions it, is properly called legal substitution; 
and can occur only in reference to personal acts ; and 
when one person is put in the place of another, with 
a view to his acting for him, it is called vicarious sub- 
stitution; and is but another name for the doctrine of 
federal representation, or rather is the preparatory to 
such representation. 

Now, in order to legal or vicarious substitution, 
there must he fij^stly^ a person bound by law, to some 
certain duties; secondly^ a person not so bound under 
law, who may be put under the legal obligations of 
the other, upon his removal ; and thirdly y a person 
representing the law and ruling in the whole transac- 
tion. 

In the case of military service, just referred to, the 
principal is held under law, to certain services, invol- 
ving laborious efforts arid peril of life. The law has a 
claim upon him, which it will not forego. But, as the 
claim is for specific services, and the sufferings and 
peril which may be contingent thereto, the law con- 
cedes a change of person, whilst it demands identity 
of service. The object of the legal claim may be as 
effectually secured by a substitute, as by his principal ; 
and when the ends of law are fully accomplished, jus- 
tice is satisfied, and of course awards the meed of due 
applause. 

The possibility of legal substitution, therefore, im- 
plies in the principal^ an obligation to do, or to suffer, 
something ; and a willingness to have this claim trans- 
ferred, or passed over to another person : or, in other 
words, a willingness, that another person shall take 
his place, and abide his responsibilities. 

It implies in the substitute^ a moral right, that is, a 
right in the eye of the moral law, to come under the 
obligations of the other. The thing to be done or 
suffered, must, in itself, be such a thing as is right for 
him to do or to suffer. He must have a right of con- 



SUBSTITUTION. 213 

trol over himself in reference to the services required. 
He can have no right to give away services to, or for 
another which were not his own. Hence, manifestly, 
a man has no right to offer himself as a substitute for 
a person condemned to death; he has no right to 
give away his life, for it is not his own ; it belongs to 
God, and none but God who gave it has a right to de- 
stroy it. A man may forfeit his life to the laws of 
God and his country, and thus throw it away ; but he 
has no right to do so ; the act is criminal ; it partakes 
of the nature of suicide, and for it, as well as for the 
crime which caused the forfeiture, God vfill hold him 
responsible. 

So, personal services, a minor has no right to give 
away by substitution ; for they are not his own ; they 
belong to his parent or guardian. Before he can 
have a right to expend them for the benefit of an- 
other, he must have the right in himself to expend 
them for himself. A minor, therefore, however will- 
ing, cannot, of himself, become a legal substitute. 
Another phase of the same idea, is, that the person 
substituted, must be duly qualified to perform the ser- 
vices to which his principal was bound. To engage to 
perform what a man is unable to perform, is an im- 
morality, and a fraud, both upon the principal and the 
law. 

Another indispensable to legal substitution, is, a 
willingness to assume the responsibilities of the prin- 
cipal ; it must be voluntary, in order to be right. 
There is, in fact, in every case, a virtual covenant, 
agreement or contract, between the principal and his 
substitute — a mutual consent, creating a moral union 
between them as parties. 

But these are not the only requisites to substitu- 
tion. It is not sufficient, that there be a principal, 
under certain obligations, and willing to have them 
transferred — that there be a substitute, having a 
moral right to receive the transfer, an ability and a 
willingness, to meet the obligations of his principal.' 
Every instance of legal substitution, is a covenant of 
three parties. The law, also, has a voice in the mat- 



214 SUBSTITUTION. 

ter; it has a specific claim upon the individual. A. 
is bound to certain duties or to endure certain penal 
evils. In either case the law knows only A; it can 
claim of A only ; it has nothing against B and can 
claim nothing at his hand. A's willingness to trans- 
fer his liabilities to B; and B's willingness to receive 
them, and abide the consequences, lays the law under 
no obligation to admit the arrangement. If I em- 
ploy A to do a piece of work, I am under no obliga- 
tion to put it into the hands of B, C, or D, or any 
other whom A may send as a substitute : I know only 
the party contracting, and the admission of another 
in his room, is purely optional with me. I may think 
D and C unsuitable to the service, and insist upon A 
fulfilling his contract. I may think B as competent 
as A to secure my object, and may agree to the sub- 
stitution : but this is, manifestly, a new item in the 
contract: it brings in another party: it is now a con- 
tract of three parties. 

It is therefore obvious, that on the part of the law, 
there must exist a moral right to approve the substi- 
tution. If the law's claim upon A is for something 
over which B has no right of control as to himself, the 
law cannot approve the transfer. To put B to death 
for the crime of A would be unjust, even with the con- 
sent of both ; unless B had a right to give that consent ; 
that is, unless B had a right to dispose of his own life 
at pleasure. But as this is not the case with any 
mere creature — as no mere creature has a right over 
his own life, to destroy it at pleasure, so, no man can 
have a right to substitute himself for another doomed 
to death, and the law cannot consent to such substi- 
tution. It can only originate with that sovereignty 
which is above the law. 

This reasoning will apply in all cases of criminal 
award. Suppose A condemned to ten years confine- 
ment in the penitentiary, and suppose B willing and 
able to do the labour, and to endure the hardships 
awarded to A, can such a substitution take place? 
Would it be morally right? Could the law allow it? 
To these interrogatories, the common sense of man- 



SUBSTITUTION. 215 

kind, and the laws of all civilized countries give but 
one response. All revolt against the punishment of 
the innocent in room of the guilty: and the reason is 
obvious. No man has a right to sell his own free- 
dom. A. did wrong in becoming bound to durance 
vile: it was his crime. B's rights and duties are re- 
ciprocal. God made him free, and the possession of 
this precious treasure, is, itself, evidence of an obliga- 
tion to preserve it, and to improve it. It is a talent, 
which he has no right either to bury in the earth or 
lay up in a napkin: he must use it, or be criminal. 
He has no right to throw it away, and therefore, sub- 
stitution in such case, is not allowed. Every man is 
under eternal obligations to preserve, and to improve, 
his natural and inalienable rights, and cannot, with- 
out criminality, ever be willing to surrender them. I 
have no more right to sacrifice my freedom, than to 
cut off my hand or my head. Each of these would be 
wrong, and a man cannot have a right to do wrong. 
Legal substitution, therefore, can occur only within 
the limits of personal rights. Just so far as I have, 
in the eye of law, human and divine, entire control 
over my person and conduct, and so far only, can I 
consent to be substituted in room of another, to sus- 
tain his legal responsibilities. Such is the simple doc- 
trine of vicarious substitution. 



SECTION VI. 

SUBSTITUTION^ EMBODIED IN THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. 

1. The whole body of God's redeemed ones are the 
principaL ''I lay down my life for the sheep.''' 
''He suffered, the just for the unjust." ''He was 
wounded for our transgressions." In the condition 
of the lost, whom Christ came to save, we have the 
two great requisites to a principal, (1) God's redeemed 
were bound under his law to the endurance of his 
wrath. This is the common lot of the race, as we 
have seen at due length. " All have sinned and do 



216 SUBSTITUTION. 

come sliort of the glory of God." The whole world 
has become guilty before God, and therefore it is 
appointed by a decree of heaven, unto man once to 
die. " The wages of sin is death." ^ Guilt is the bond 
which binds the sinner to the stake for eternal burn- 
ings. This state of the race makes it necessary to 
procure a substitute, as it lays open the opportunity — 
it creates the possibility of substitution. (2) All the 
people of God are (or will be) willing to accept the 
proffered substitute. Naturally of themselves, they are 
hostile and unwilling; but supernaturally— -through 
the teachings of the word, and the almighty workings 
of the Holy Ghost, they become willing, and do hum- 
ble themselves, and embrace the proffered boon of 
heaven. They are made to feel their lost estate, and 
exposure to wrath : they are enabled in God's light, 
to see light clearly, and seeing the suitableness of the 
offered salvation, they become willing in the day of 
God's power. 

2. The substitute is Jesus the Lamb of God. And 
we have in him the three requisites. (1) He had a 
moral right to make the substitution ; i. e. to put him- 
self under the legal responsibilities of his people. 
For He has ''life in himself;" it is his absolutely, and 
independently. In John x. 17, 18, He is very par- 
ticular in the statement of this position. " Therefore 
doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, 
that I might take it again. No man taketh it from 
me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay 
it down, and I have power to take it again." The 
power here, unquestionably, involves the right to use 
it. His life, which he lays down for his sheep, is his 
own, by an underived title: it belongs to him essen- 
tially, and he may, therefore, do with it as seems 
good in his own sight. The humanity of our Lord is 
a miracle as to its origin. It was produced in a man- 
ner beyond the range of the ordinary laws of our 
nature. Its mode of existence is a miracle: it is 
not sustained by a divine power existing apart from 
itself; but it is, and always has been, in personal 
nnion with the self-existent Jehovah. As he holds 



SUBSTITUTION. 217 

his life, as man, not dependently on another, but in 
himself, he may lay it down at pleasure. Were he 
dependent — did he hold his life by sufferance, he 
could not rightfully give it away : but inasmuch as the 
Father hath life in himself, and so hath He given to 
the Son to have life in himself," it is at his own dis- 
posal. He may voluntarily surrender it, by putting 
himself into the legal relations of those who are under 
condemnation, by the judgment of the holy God, 
There is this clear difference between the man Jesus, 
and all other men, that they all are dependent for life 
and all its attributes, upon another; even upon God 
the Creator, and, of course, not one of them has a 
right over his own life ; but Jesus has such a right in 
and of himself. The importance of this point is not 
in proportion to the time spent in its illustration; but 
its obvious plainness and simplicity, prevent the neces- 
sity of dwelling longer on it. 

(2) Jesus was able to meet the claims of law upon 
those for whom he became a substitute. He could 
and did, as we have seen, fulfil the entire law of God, 
by a life of active, holy submission to all its com- 
mands. He could and did endure pain and anguish 
inconceivable. . 

(3) These he voluntarily undertook. "Lo, I come, 
in the volume of the book it is written of me ; I delight 
to do thy will, my God." 

3. God the Father, supervising the claims of eter- 
nal righteousness, had a demand on man for perfect 
and full obedience and entire satisfaction for sin. 
These we fully set forth, when speaking of the effects 
of the broken covenant. He had a right to transfer 
those claims to his Son; or in other words, there was 
no principle of law violated, when the Father accepted 
the substitution of his Son in the room of lost man: 
and this w^as actually done. The Father did lay the 
burden of our iniquities upon him, and was pleased to 
bruise him. 

19 



218 SUBSTITUTION. 



SECTION VII. 

THE DOCTRINE OF SUBSTITUTION PROVED AND ILLUSTRATED BY THE 
TYPICAL SACRIFICES, 

Under the old dispensation, various offerings were 
prescribed by law, and the bloody sacrifices all repre- 
sented substantially the same thing. Moses describes 
the essence of the whole in a few words; the wor- 
shipper, he says, (Lev. i. 3, 4.) ''shall offer it of his 
own voluntary will, at the door of the tabernacle of 
the congregation before the Lord. And he shall put 
his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it 
shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." 

Here is substitution — ''it is accepted for him; to 
make atonement for him." In these offerings, there 
is, 1. a confession or remembrance of sin. The wor- 
shippers are still reminded that they stand charged 
with sin. 2. There is an acknowledgment that life 
is forfeited. The life of the animal is destroyed, 
and its body, in whole or in part, is burnt upon 
the altar — a most significant mode of confessing, 
not only the sins of the worshipper, but also that 
these sins deserve God's wrath and curse — in whose 
execution the worshipper sees the everlasting ruin 
of his soul ; and is thus led to deep concern for his 
safety. 3. There is expressed a hope of escaping 
the death due for sin. The worshipper is restored to 
favour : his past sin is remembered no more against 
him : he is admitted to the communion of the church, 
to the congregation of the Lord. 4. This deliverance 
from ceremonial guilt is through the sufferings of 
another. His victim has bled ; and he escapes. The 
offering is substituted in place of the offerer, the one 
dies and the other lives. 

On the great day of atonement, when the High 
Priest confesses over the scape goat, the sins of the 
people, and sends him away unto the wilderness, and 
when he slays the other goat to make an atonement 
for the people, the same truths are set forth. 

So, the paschal lamb represents a suffering Saviour, 



SUBSTITUTION. 219 

■whose '"^ flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink 
indeed." And a single inspired allusion is sufficient 
to satisfy every candid reader of the true intent and 
meaning of this thing. " Christ, our passover, is 
sacrificed for us, let us therefore go forth to him who 
has suffered without the gate." Never could it be 
supposed that the blood of bulls and of goats should 
take away sins; but those sacrifices were typical ; they 
pointed to Christ the Lamb of God, who, through the 
eternal Spirit, ofl*ered himself a sacrifice for his peo- 
ple. As the High Priest laid the sins of the people 
upon the victim's head, so God our Father laid our 
iniquities upon his own Son : as the devoted victim 
must die ; so the devoted Redeemer must die. . 



SECTION VIII. 

THIS DOCTRINE ALONE CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT, THAT JESUS 
SUFFERED, BLED AND DIED. 

We have seen that the Son of God did suffer most 
excruciating agonies ; that this was by express appoint- 
ment of the Father; that when the Father was 
entreated to let the bitter cup pass ; it did not pass ; 
the Saviour drank it in all its bitterness. This is the 
fact : God did bruise him. 

Now this was either right or wrong. The sulBFer- 
ings of Christ were inflicted on him by God, either in 
pursuance of the claims of divine justice, or in oppo- 
sition to them. Which was it? Was it wrong in 
God to put such a cup into the hands of Jesus, and to 
constrain him to drink it? — to refuse to let it pass 
from him, though entreated by all that is tender and 
sympathising in the bleeding agonies of Gethsemane ! 
Was it wrong in God to nail him on the accursed tree ! 
Was it wrong in God to withdraw from his own Son, 
the tokens of his love, and to leave him to all the 
agonies of one forsaken ! Was all this wrong ! Nay, 
but ^' shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" 

How then could it be right, to inflict such pain 
upon one so holy, harmless, undefiled and separate 



220 SUBSTITUTION. 

from sinners? ^'He that condemneth the rIghteouSj 
is an abomination to the Lord;" how much more he, 
"who both condemns and executes the righteous ! How 
then shall w6 exonerate the divine government from 
the enormous cruelty, and the flagrant injustice, of 
imposing the most awful sufferings upon the holiest, 
and the loveliest and most upright of all the subjects 
of its laws ? Here is a problem in the moral universe 
— a spectacle to angels and to men. Heaven's first 
born, and best beloved — the sum of all moral perfec- 
tions-— the personified essence of all moral virtues — 
the brightness of the Father's glory — the express image 
of his person, writhing, bleeding, dying by God's 
appointment ! Amazing scene ! Well might yonder 
sun hide his head! Well might all hell rejoice! Well 
might all heaven tremble! Well might the loftiest 
angels tremble for their crowns, and exclaim, ''If such 
innocence, such holiness, sueli righteousness, can suffer 
such things ; alas for us ! where the guarantee of our 
safety?" If no mountain load of si7i imputed^ bows 
that blessed head; alas, for the moral universe! 
God has forgotten to be just! Cruelty and un- 
righteousness are the habitation of his throne — wrath- 
ful and indiscriminate destruction go before him ! 

Leaving out of view, the doctrine of vicarious sub- 
stitution, I ask, is it possible, for any rational mind to 
avoid these startling and tremendous conclusions ? 
How can you solve the problem in any other way 
than this, which charges God foolishly ? I, therefore, 
leave the burning point of this sword, in the con- 
science of all who deny the doctrine of Christ's being 
a substitute in room of his people, and bearing their 
sins in his own body on the tree : and turn to this 
glorious and blessed truth, as containing a full and 
thorough solution of the problem before us. 

Jesus was the substitute of his people — their Pas- 
chal Lamb. By his own voluntary deed, he put him- 
self in their legal position : He undertook for them, 
to meet all the claims of law. God the Father con- 
sented to the substitution ; because the Son had a 
right over his own life, and could lay it down at plea- 



SUBSTITUTION. 221 

sure.' Jesus having thus taken upon himself, the 
legal responsibility of his people, is bound to do and 
to suffer in. their place and room, all that they were 
bound to do and to suffer. Their sins were laid upon 
him. The cords by which they were bound to the 
stake, are loosed from off them, and bound upon him. 
The law lays hold upon him. Justice commands, 
^'Smite the Shepherd and the sheep shall be scat- 
tered." '' He was wounded for our transgressions, 
he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement 
of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes 
we are healed — for the Lord hath laid on him the 
iniquities of us all;" and therefore was he pleased to 
bruise him. 

Thus, the doctrine of substitution solves the moral 
problem ; and presents us at once, v/ith the most 
illustrious exhibition of the immaculate purity of 
divine justice, and of its eternal inflexibility. To the 
cross of Calvary the universe is triumphantly pointed, 
as illustrating in the highest possible degree, the 
glory of the divine justice. On that awful mount she 
stands : the scales of eternal equity in one hand, and 
the flaming sword of immutable righteousness in the 
other : a bleeding, w^eeping Christ before her : the 
groans, and tears, and bloody sweat of Gethsemane, 
pleading with ten thousand tongues, ^'let this cup 
pass !" Heaven and all its hosts of angels, aghast 
and in w^ondering amazement : hell, deluded hell, in 
malignant joy, watching the grand result : Justice — 
stern, and unyielding, utters her fiat — Smite the 
Shepherd. 

Oh, what a groan was there! ^^ It is finished." 
The deed is done. Justice is satisfied. The moral 
government of the universe is established upon her 
eternal basis. Hell is disappointed. The curse is 
merged in Calvary's blood and for ever lost. The 
barrier is removed, mercy, with a bow of promise, 
ushers forth — a ruined world is saved ! 



19* 



222 CONSEQUENCES OF SUBSTITUTION. 



SECTION IX. 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF LEGAL SUBSTITUTION. 

1. To the suhstitiite. For all the purposes, for 
■which he is a substitute, he lies under the same legal 
obligations under which his principal lay. If. his 
principal was bound to active obedience to the law, 
so is he. If the principal was held under the curse, 
or penal sanction of the law, so is he. He must en- 
dure it all. Hence the impossibility of this cup 
passing aw^ay, because of the immutability of divine 
justice. 

If the principal should himself satisfy all claims of 
law against himself, he must be released from punish- 
ment, and made happy for ever according to the terms 
of the covenant, wherein God promised life to man. 
So Christ, the sinner's substitute, surety, and friend, 
having finished the whole work given him ; having for 
his people, and in their responsibilities, fulfilled all 
law, must rise from the dead and live for ever. There- 
fore, ''he could not be holden of death ;" it is a moral 
impossibility. Justice — the very same stern justice 
"which demanded of him, obedience and death, now 
demands his release from that death. Her claim is 
satisfied and she has no more disposition than power 
to retain her captive in chains. The same divine 
fiat which said, " Smite the Shepherd," now proclaims, 
*' Raise him to everlasting glory," and ''let all the 
angels of God w^orship him." Unto him let "every 
knee bow, and every tongue confess." He has glori- 
fied me above all the creatures of God, and let all the 
creatures of God, through everlasting ages, exalt his 
glory in the highest. 

From the actual substitution of Christ, — his actual 
meeting of all claims against his people and him, 
results his universal dominion. "All power is given 
unto me in heaven and in earth." This dominion is 
founded in right. Because he hath established the 
great principles of moral government, therefore is its 



CONSEQUENCES OF SUBSTITUTION. 223 

actual administration over the universe, entrusted to 
his hands. Because ''he humbled himself and became 
obedient until death, therefore hath God highly exalt- 
ed him, and given him a name, which is above every 
name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
bow and every tongue confess." 

From this substitution results the Redeemer's right 
in his people, and his claim for their release from all 
the consequences of sin: he has met those conse- 
quences, and has a claim to their exemption : he has 
paid the price of their redemption, and is entitled to 
their deliverance. To retain them in bondage, after 
He demands their release, were the height of injus- 
tice. Such power, the law has not. It must* recog- 
nise the claims of our blessed substitute, the moment 
he puts them in. 

Hence results, the mission of the Spirit at the in- 
tercession of the Son. ''Him the Father heareth 
ahyays." This is not the place to dwell upon the in- 
tercession of Christ, nor the mission of his Spirit. I 
only remark the connexion in law and in right, be- 
tween these things. These follow as a matter of 
moral necessity, as peremptory and inevitable, in a 
legal or moral point of view, as any consequence in 
the natural world, follows its natural antecedent. It 
is not more a matter of necessity, that a ponderous 
body, projected into the air, must descend again to 
the earth, than that the deliverance of his people from 
the bondage of the law, and of sin, and of death, 
should follow Christ's legal substitution in their room, 
and his consequent obedience and death for them. 
Equally clear is Christ's right to his people's rescue 
from the grave, and their eternal blessedness in hea- 
ven. Their reception into everlasting glory and 
security therein, by an irreversible decision of eter- 
nal judgment, is one, and indeed the main right, title 
and claim of Jesus, founded on the fullness of his own 
satisfaction to all the claims of all law, human and 
divine, ceremonial and moral. 

2. To the principal. The results of substitution 
are correspondently important. He is released from 



224 CONSEQUENCES OF SUBSTITUTION. 

those demands of law, for which his substitute has 
already satisfied by his death. This grows out of the 
very nature of moral government — the nature of jus- 
tice. That a man should be held liable to suffer, after 
the law has said, in reference to its own claim asrainst 
him, '4t is finished," is a contradiction in terms. It 
is affirming a thing to be, and not to be, at the same 
time. Guilt, or liableness to punishment, lies upon 
him, after it has been taken off him and put upon the 
head of his substituted Surety, and he has taken it 
away ! The Lamb of God has taken away the sins of 
the world, and yet they lie upon it ! The sinner is 
redeemed, and yet he is in bondage ! The curse has 
been laid upon the head of his Surety ; and yet it is 
laid upon his head ! The one has suffered all that 
justice demanded, or could demand, and yet the other 
is still bound to suffer ! The one has drunk the bitter 
cup to the very dregs ; and yet the other must drink 
it all! 

Clearly then, it is a moral impossibility, laid in the 
very nature of God's eternal righteousness, that the 
sheep of Christ's flock, should not be with him, in due 
time, to behold his glory and to enjoy him for ever. 

3. In reference to God the Father, as the execu- 
tor of justice — atonement J in the general sense of the 
English term — reconciliation results. The parties 
ofi*ended, and at variance, viz : sinful man and the 
sin-hating God, are brought together. The cause of 
God's displeasure towards m.an — the only possible 
cause, is sin. If then, the cause be removed, the* 
effects must pass away. God is angry with the wick- 
ed on account of their wickedness. Their sins only 
render them odious in his sight : but their sins are re- 
moved, taken away, and for ever washed out by the 
blood of Christ ; consequently, their Father's displea- 
sure must cease, and he admit them to his favour, 
which is life, and to the participation of his loving 
kindness, which is better than life. We are recon- 
ciled to God by the death of his Son. 

But here, it is of no small importance to distinguish, 
between offended God and offending man, in reference 



CONSEQUENCES OF SUBSTITUTION. 225 

to this reconciliation. God's indignation burns eter- 
nally against all sin. His justice requires its punish- 
ment. His holiness requires, with equal rigidness, 
holiness in man, and in case of its absence, he can- 
not look with complacency upon him. Now, the eye 
of God is turned upon the all perfect satisfaction 
rendered by Christ's death, and He is pleased; is 
turned upon the infinitely perfect righteousness of 
Christ, in his obeying the law, and He is satisfied, 
and delights therein. God is reconciled; He is no 
longer angry with the sinner ; for he is no longer a 
sinner in the eye of God, and of his justice. 

But as to the man, — his actual reconciliation — the 
removal of all feeling of enmity to God, and the sub- 
stitution in their place, of all holy affections — of su- 
preme and ardent love to God — this is quite a differ- 
ent thing. It follows as an inevitable, but not im- 
mediate consequence, of substitution and satisfaction. 
It is inevitable, as we have seen, because of the very 
nature of moral law and government, from Christ's 
satisfaction by his substitution. But it follows medi- 
ately, viz : through the agency of the divine Spirit, 
which agency operates in the conversion and sanctifi- 
cation of the soul. This, therefore, belongs not to the 
question of legal relations at all; but will come in 
properly, when our attention shall be claimed by the 
moral affections, accompanjdng the change of legal 
relations. Then we shall find, that reconciliation, in 
the sense of propitiating us to God — that is, rendering 
us w^ell disposed, friendly, and imbued with a spirit of 
love to him — flows from renovation by the Holy 
Ghost, and that, in view of Christ's propitiatory sa- 
crifice. 



226 



CHAPTER XV. 



THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 

This is a very vexed question, and were it one 
merely of doubtful disputation, and not vital in its 
importance, on the great subject of Justification, we 
might avoid the discussion of it, as entirely contro- 
versial. But, inasmuch, as the extent of the atone- 
ment depends upon its nature^ the inquiry will, I 
trust, be at once interesting and profitable. In the 
discussion, I shall pursue the didactic form first ; and 
show the true doctrine, as a necessary result of the 
preceding views : and then take up the erroneous sen- 
timents and evince their true character and tenden- 
cies. 



SECTION I. 

Let us recall a few leading principles, heretofore 
settled. 

1. In the government of a holy God, an innocent 
being cannot suffer. To suppose that God would lay 
the punishment of sin, or treat a moral being, entirely 
free from sin, as a sinner, by delivering him up to 
suffer, is to charge God foolishly. 

2. The sufferings of Jesus therefore, were by ap- 
pointment of God, as he had no sin of his own. 

3. He must have suffered for the sins of some other 
person, or persons. I say person^ because, 

4. We have seen, that the idea of a person repre- 
senting or acting morally for a nature^ for a mere 
abstraction that never existed, and never could exist, 
is a speculation too foolish to claim serious attention. 



EXTENT OF ATONEMENT. 227 

5. Jesus, in acting and suffering for persons, stood 
in their moral relations — he occupied their place — he 
bore their legal responsibilities. For, 

6. There is no other reasonable solution of that 
stupendous moral phenomenon, presented on the cross 
of Calvary. If Jesus did not legally bear the sins of 
some others than himself, then his sufferings, by ap- 
pointment of God, exhibit the monster crime of the 
universe, and God is its author. Hence it is evident, 

7. That Jesus did suffer for sin. But sin is a per- 
sonal matter; and the sin that caused his death, must 

* have been the sin of some human person or persons. 

8. The person or persons whose sins lay on Jesus, 
and caused his death, are his principals ; that is, they 
are the persons for whom he acted and suffered — 
whose sin '^he put away by the sacrifice of himself." 

9. They whose sins '' he bore in his own body on 
the tree," whose sins \iQ suffered for (because this is 
what is meant by his bearing them) cannot, without 
the most palpable violation of all right, and law, and 
justice, be themselves constrained to suffer for the 
same sins. " Shall not the judge of all the earth do 
right?" Therefore, 

10. The atonement- — the satisfaction rendered to 
divine justice, is as extensive as the sheep of Christ's 
flock, and no more — the atonement is as long and as 
broad as the salvation of God; or in other words, 
they whose sins are washed out in the blood of Cal- 
vary, must be saved, and none others can be. '' There 
is none other name under heaven, given among men, 
whereby v/e must be saved." In other words, those, 
and all those, for vfhom Christ died — for whom he 
paid the ransom, or price of redemption, w411 be saved, 
and none others. To maintain any other doctrine, 
is to abandon the atonement altogether. To this 
agrees the language of the Bible. " Christ loved 
the Church and gave himself for zf." ''He was 
wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for 
our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace, was upon 
him, and with his stripes we are healed,'' ''I lay 
down my life for the sheep.' ' ''My sheep hear my 



228 PROOF FROM REDEMPTION. 

voice and they follow me, and I give unto them eter- 
nal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any 
pluck them out of my hands." 



SECTION II. 

PROOF FROM SACRIFICES. 

To this agrees the doctrine of sacrifices. The vic- 
tim is offered up for the worshipper, ''to make atone- 
ment for him." The sacrificial and scape goats, on 
the great day of atonement, bear the sins of the 
church, or congregation of the Lord. We shall search 
in vain in the sacred volume, for a sacrifice that was 
offered indefinitely, for no person, or any at all, or 
any one indiscriminately: and the reason is plain. 
There is no such sacrifice ; and in the very nature of 
the thing, there can be none such; because there can 
be no indefinite sin — no sin committed by persons in- 
definitely. Sin is always a personal matter, and un- 
til some one shall point out indefinite sin, it will be 
vain and foolish, to speak of indefinite atonement for 
sin. 

SECTION III. 

PROOF FROM THE GENERAL OPINIONS OF MEN. 

But this principle is found also, in the common 
sense of mankind, as it is embodied in their legal en- 
actments, and their commercial regulations. Every 
where, their responsibilities are personal and special: 
never indefinite. To talk of an indefinite satisfaction 
for an offence against the laws of the land, or the in- 
definite payment of a debt, or the indefinite obligation 
for a debt, is to utter incomprehensible and indefinite 
folly. 

SECTION IV. 

PROOF FROM THE IDEA OF REDEEMING. 

The same is evinced by all the language and ima- 
gery which represent this doctrine as a redemption. 



PROOF FROM REDEMPTION. 229 

Here Christ is the Redeemer — the one who purchases 
back the lost property of God, viz : his people, who 
are carried away captive by sin and Satan. They 
are his redeemed ones. The price which he pays for 
them, — the ransom^ is that atonement which, by his 
death he renders to the law, which had sold them into 
captivity. 

Duly to appreciate the force of these expressions, it 
is necessary to bear in mind, that human language is 
greatly influenced and modelled by human customs. 
Many habits of society it is necessary to understand, 
as a means of arriving at the true meaning of its lan- 
guage. Among the ancient customs of this nature, 
was that of making slaves of the prisoners of war : 
and the consequent custom of recovering these again 
to freedom, by purchase. Very frequently, wealthy 
friends interposed in behalf of unfortunate prisoners. 
In this case, the price demanded for their release, was 
not in proportion to their value : for the sons of the 
wealthy were likely to be less worth, as slaves, than 
the sons of the poor. But the price of redemption, 
or the ransom, was designed to be proportioned to the 
w^ealth and influence of the friends at home. The will 
of the master fixed its amount : and the payment of 
the ransom was part of the work or process of re- 
demption. It was, however, only a part of it. The 
mere delivering of a sum of money into the hands of 
a man, unaccompanied by a declaration of the inten- 
tion, is not a purchase: it may, perhaps, be a deposit, 
but it does not necessarily imply a contract; it may 
be for safe-keeping; it may be in payment of a debt; 
it mav be a donation. The transaction has no moral 
or legal character, unless the purpose be declared, and 
unless it be agreed to by the receiver. Then, and 
then only, can it be considered as a ransom^ when the 
buyer and the seller of the captive, both view it as 
such, and are both agreed, the one to give, and the 
other to receive it. Thus the redeeming of a captive 
is, substantially, a covenant between two parties for 
the benefit of a third; and when the terms are com- 
plied with by the redeemer, he has a claim of right to 
20 



230 PROOF FROM REDEMPTION. 

the release of the third party : the full vindication of 
which claim, completes the operation, called redemp- 
tion. 

Such were the customs of the world which gave rise 
to that language of the Bible, that sets forth the work 
of salvation, as a redemption. Thus, Christ redeemed 
his people from the curse of the law. He gave him- 
self a ransom for all of them. Hence, they are 
bought with a price, and are not their own; nor 
do they belong to the world or the devil ; they are 
Christ's. 

Now, all such language is calculated to deceive us, 
unless it be true, that Jesus has certain friends and 
brethren, who, by fraud and deception, force and vio- 
lence, have been carried away captives, and sold 
under sin: and whom it is his purpose to recover to 
their original state of holiness, happiness, and free- 
dom. But on this supposition, all is plain, and 
obvious, and forceful. Let. it be conceded, that an 
immense multitude of persons are given to him by 
the Father; and that he has undertaken to bring 
them all to glory; and this language concerning 
redemption has a beauty and a force, altogether 
worthy of the glorious subject. Of this multitude, 
Jesus is the Redeemer. This redeeming, of course, 
includes the payment of the ransom^ and the release 
of the ransomed. 

1. The payment of the ransom or lorice of redemp- 
tion: which is death. Matt. xx. 28, ''the son of man 
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and 
to give his life a ransom {kvt^ov — a price of redemp- 
tion) for many." Psalm xlix. 7, ''None of them can 
by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a 
ransom for him." Here the ability to redeem, that 
is, to buy back to life, his brother is denied ; yea, even 
the ability to pay the price. A man might be able 
to pay the ransom required to restore his brother to 
freedom, and at the same time, be unable to vindicate 
the rights of his purchase. But neither of these is 
the case. No man is able to pay to God the ransom; 
much less, is any able to release the soul from death. 



PROOF FROM REDEMPTION. 231 

Jesus Christ says, " I will ransom them from the 
power of the grave ; I will redeem them from death : 
death, I will be thy plagues; grave, I will be thy 
destruction." Hos. xiii. 14; and again, ^^for the Lord 
hath ransomed Jacob and redeemed Israel." Jer. xxxi. 
11. Here again, is the distinction marked between 
ransoming and redeeming — between the payment of 
the price and the deliverance of the persons for whom 
it is paid. 

2. The restoration to their former state of free- 
dom and happiness, is the main part of redemption : 
it includes the other ; for when the price is paid, and 
there is power to vindicate the rights it creates, this 
follows of course. The other is pre-supposed ; so that 
in a just administration, you can infer, from the actual 
release of the sinner from the consequences of sin, 
viz. death, that death has been suffered for him — the 
price has been paid. Accordingly, it is affirmed, 
(Gal. iii. 13.) " Christ hath redeemed us from the 
curse of the law, being made a curse for us : for it is 
written, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." 
And Peter (iv. 18,) says, ^'ye were not redeemed with 
corruptible things, such as silver and gold, from your 
vain conversation, received by tradition from your 
fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ." And 
(Titus, ii. 14.) Christ " gave himself for us, that he 
might redeem us from all iniquity." The actual 
release is a very important — it is, in reality, the all 
important — item, in the work of redemption. Without 
it, there is no redemption at all : without it, what is 
the payment of the ransom, but an exhibition of folly 
or weakness, or both? Without it, no song of grati- 
tude can ever burst from living lips. Who will ever 
thank and praise a Redeemer that left him in bond- 
age ? If they had only had the price paid for them : if 
they had been left, notwithstanding, in sin and misery, 
could ever the elect of God have struck the lofty 
notes of that " new song, saying, Thou art worthy to 
take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou 
wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood?" 
Rev. V. 9. — thou hast purchased — paid a price for us 



232 PROOF PROM REDEMPTION. 

(^yopoca-ccq,) Surely, this song belongs only to those 
•who are paid for, and restored to everlasting joys. 
Hence, Paul says, (Heb. ix. 12.) Christ hath '' ob- 
tained eternal redemption for us:" and this is the 
redemption, {?^vTpucriv,) the releasing which Luke says 
the faithful in Israel look for. (ii. 38.) The same ori- 
ginal word is used to signify the releasing of the per- 
secuted saints, (Heb. xi. 35.) " others were tortured 
not accepting deliverance'' — redemption — release from 
their affliction, i. e. not accepting it on the terms 
offered by their persecutors ; viz. upon condition they 
renounce their religion. Hence, again, I infer, the 
leading and principal idea in redemption is, the re- 
storation of the redeemed to their former state, and 
the secondary idea, as to importance, but primary as 
to order of time, is the purchase or payment of the 
ransom. 

This, Jesus effected, when he died on the cross, 
and said "it is finished;" the vindication of his rights 
thence accruing, he effects by the power of his spirit 
in the entire work of sanctification. Our present con- 
cern is to show, that the purchase and the release are 
co-extensive. Christ paid the ransom for all who 
shall ever be by him brought to glory — for all who 
shall ever " sing the new song." Not one of that im- 
mense throng shall be guilty of affirming an untruth, 
"when he shall say to the Redeemer, ''thou wast slain, 
and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." But he 
redeemed no more. Not one of that other and doleful 
multitude who shall go away, shall be allowed to strike 
up, as he starts on his downward course into the fires 
of an endless hell, the note, 'Hhouwast slain and hast 
redeemed us to God by thy blood." Who, of all the 
lost spirits of hell, will venture to blacken his own 
guilt, and sink himself deeper in the abyss of woe, by 
uttering such a falsehood and disturbing the chorus of 
perdition ? What foul-mouthed fiend w^ill dare to as- 
sault heaven, and insult the Judge, who has just pro- 
nounced his irrevocable doom, by thus charging the 
Son of God with offering a vain oblation — paying a 
price for him which did not secure him ? What case 



PROOF FROM REDEMPTION. 233 

hardened demon will thus flout the efficacy of atoning 
blood ? Dwells there in all hell such effrontery as to 
affirm, Jesus " gave himself for me !" — " he died for 
my sins!" — he paid the ransom for me — he pur- 
chased me — he took away my sins — he died as much 
for me as for those who go yonder into life eternal ! 
Ah, no ! This ignorance, presumption and blasphe- 
mous arrogance, is a sin of earth only. Neither hea- 
ven nor hell, can thus trifle with atoning blood. 
Neither angel nor devil, neither sinner lost nor saved, 
will be found thus contemptibly to think or speak of 
the groans of Gethsemane, and the sorrows of Cal- 
vary. Of such folly earth only is the abode. Here 
only is the satisfaction of the Son of God so .lightly 
esteemed, as to be thought to secure the salvation of 
no one. Here only, is Jesus Christ accounted guilty, 
either of folly, or weakness, or both: — of folly, in 
paying a price for those he never expected to secure 
and bring to heaven ; or, if he did expect and design 
to save them, of weakness, in not accomplishing his 
purpose and fulfilling his expectations : or of both, in 
the nonperformance of the principal thing in redemp- 
tion, viz : the actual salvation of the redeemed ! 

But now, if your heart and your head equally re- 
volt at the absurdity and impiety of an atonement, 
that of itself secures the salvation of no one — if you 
shrink from tabling such a charge, against the wis- 
dom and goodness of Christ, as that of paying a 
ransom, but not vindicating the rights of his purchase; 
of redeeming multitudes who shall burn for ever in the 
fires of death ; of atoning for multitudes who are never 
reconciled to God ! — if these things are too mon- 
strous ; then you are ready to receive the plain scrip- 
ture doctrine of Christ's true and proper legal substi- 
tution in the room of his people — his consequent 
representation of them — his acting for them, and for 
none others, in his obedience — his suffering for his 
sheep — not for the goats, and thus making legal resti- 
tution for their sins ; so as to bind down the faithful- 
ness of God the Father, to their release from sin and 
their security for ever in the joys of life. In other 
*20 



234 universalist's objection. 

words, that the obedience and death of the Son of 
God, are vicarious — they are for his own people. The 
atonement, by the very necessity and essence of its 
own nature, is precise and definite. " I lay down my 
life for the sheep." 

Such is the doctrine of atonement as we have it set 
forth in the Bible — a doctrine whose inimitable sim- 
plicity bespeaks its heavenly origin, almost equally 
with its unspeakable grandeur — a doctrine which 
glorifies the justice of God, whilst it reveals his mercy 
— a doctrine which has its foundation in the eternal 
and unchanging principles of right and law, and 

"Sets not at odds heaven's jarring attributes," 

— brings all the perfections of God to harmonize in 
the salvation of man : a doctrine, which presents to 
the bleeding heart a full and gracious guarantee that 
it " shall never perish," and thus forms an immoveable 
foundation for the edifice of its hopes, and the habita- 
tion of its joys as a doctrine : that points out, with a 
sunbeam, the manner in which '' God can be just and 
thejustifier of him Avhich believeth in Jesus." 



CHAPTER XVI. 

OBJECTIONS AGAINST A DEFINITE AND REAL ATONE- 
MENT. 

Against this doctrine, so abundant in blessings to 
good men, and glory to the good and upright God — 
who are they that have any thing to object ? 

SECTION I. 

THE universalist's OBJECTION. 

Universalists maintain, that Christ will ultimately 
bring to heaven all the human race — yea, some insist, 
that all moral creatures, fallen angels, as well as men, I 



universalist's objection. 235 

will be saved ; that it Is unworthy of God to stop half 
way : that it is inconsistent with his universal bene- 
volence, to thrust out into eternal death any creature 
of his hand : that the doctrine of limited salvation 
makes God partial, and thus stains the glory of the 
divine attributes, by exhibiting God as a cruel being, 
who makes his creatures unhappy. On the other 
hand, that universal salvation is broad and liberal, 
worthy of the benevolent God, and attracting by its 
liberality the hearts of all creatures to himself. 

On this subject we must be very brief, and that, not 
because of its difficulty ; but because of its plainness 
and simplicity, and comparative insignificance. 

1. The doctrine of universal salvation is very pala- 
table to the carnal mind — the unrenewed heart. All 
unconverted men would believe it, if they were able. 
Whenever it is presented to the unsanctified heart, 
there springs up a spontaneous desire, that it might 
be true : and this desire resists steadfastly the evidence 
of its falsehood. Wicked men, all over the world, 
would fondly believe it ; and do actually believe it, so 
far as they can. Now, from this fact, is manifest the 
opposition of the doctrine to the pure teachings of the 
Bible. If universalism were the gospel of Christ, that 
gospel would have no cross in it. If the Bible taught 
universal salvation, it would be universally, and at 
once embraced. Its agreeableness to the feelings of 
the carnal mind, would secure it a prompt reception 
in every bosom. The popularity of universalism with 
the thoughtless and wicked, is proof irresistible, that 
it is not the system taught in the Bible. 

2. The word of God is the only infallible rule of 
direction in this question : and its testimonies are 
very explicit : a few only of them we can present. 
Ps. ix. 17, " the wicked shall be turned into hell and 
all the nations that forget God." Prov. xiv. 29, 
''The wicked is driven away in his wickedness, but 
the righteous hath hope in his death." Prov. xi. 21, 
'' Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be 
unpunished." 

This punishment is represented in Scripture, by the 



236 universalist's objection. 

strongest language and imagery possible ; both in re- 
gard to its intensity and duration. 

(1) Its intensity — '^ who among us shall dwell with 
devouring fire!'' " Tophet is ordained of old, for 
the king it is prepared ; he hath made it deep and 
large, the pile thereof is fire and much wood : and the 
breath of the Lord" — the Spirit Jehovah — ''like a 
stream of brimstone, doth kindle it." Isa. xxx. 33. 
And the fearful destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah 
are constantly referred to, as expressive of the terrible 
punishment of the wicked. And in Math. xxv. 46, 
the Saviour says, "these shall go away into everlast- 
ing fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" — • 
" their worm dieth not and their fire is not quench- 
ed." No language can more awfully and fearfully 
depict the terrors of future punishment, than the ac- 
count given of the rich man and Lazarus ; Luke xvi. 
19 — 31. The only request that the lost spirit pre- 
sents is, that " Lazarus might be sent to dip the tip 
of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am 
tormented in this flame." And even this momentary 
and trifling alleviation is denied. The power of human 
language and fancy is exhausted. No stronger re- 
presentation can be given or conceived, of the terri- 
bleness of hell torment. 

(2.) But many of these texts also go to show the 
interminable nature of it : the last, for example ; there 
is a great gulf fixed, and there is no passing out nor 
in. It is an impassable gulf. The Son of Man hath 
arisen and shut to the door, and those who are with- 
out shall never enter in — " depart from me ye cursed, 
I never knew you." Such language, from such lips; 
Oh ! how it seals the soul up in endless death ! And 
is there no hope at all ; no alleviation ; no termina- 
tion? Must it toss upon the burning billows intermi- 
nably ? When myriads of years have dragged away 
their weary length, will hell's torments be half over ? 
Will it be but just begun? Will there be no propor- 
tion of it past ? 

♦' When I have rolled ten thousand years in fire — 
Ten thousand thousand let me then expire." 



universalist's objection. 237 

Ah! no — unhappy spirit! Eternal justice has 
against thee an eternal demand, which cannot be 
satisfied by finite mortal in any thing short of eternal 
ages ; thou hast gone away into everlasting fire. 

Here we may remark, to cut off licentious criticism 
at once, that the original terms {o^iuviov^ dtt::j/aj tdv 
aiuvojii) are the strongest that can be used to express 
endless duration: or the end of the being, or thing to 
which they are applied. No words in the Greek lan- 
guage are of more determined character: and, there- 
fore, this term is applied to signify the endless happi- 
ness of the righteous — ''the righteous into liiQeternaV 
— ''these into punishment eternal^'''' it is the same 
Greek word. If then, as universalists would h-ave it, 
everlasting or eternal means only a long time, but not 
forever ; then it follows, that the righteous are not to 
live forever : the very same word describes the dura- 
tion of the punishment and the duration of the life. 
If the criticism holds good against the endless dura- 
tion of the punishment ; it holds equally good against 
the endless duration of the happiness: if it extinguish 
hell fire ; it also extinguishes the life of heaven. But 
more than this ; it brings the existence of the divine 
being himself to a close : for the Greek word for ever- 
lasting, or eternal, is the strongest used to express the 
duration of God's existence. Paul says, Christ offered 
himself "through the eternal spirit," (Heb. ix. 14.) 
and in Rom. xvi. 26, he speaks " of the everlasting 
God," in both which places, he uses the same word, 
which is applied to mark the duration of heaven and 
of hell. Thus, by one single criticism, hell and hea- 
ven, angels, and men, devils, and God — all — all are 
swept off. So nearly does the universalist's doctrine 
approach to dark, doleful, damnable atheism. It may 
be, indeed, this is the object. These men wish, per- 
haps, to get clear of all belief in the being of a God, 
in hope of escaping the lashes of a condemning con- 
science, that refuses to submit to the humbling doc- 
trines of the cross. Alas I vain hope. Everlasting 
fires are not so easily extinguished. God is not thus 



238 universalist's objection. 

obliterated. Ah, no! The dreadful reality recoils 
upon us continually. 

** The sinner must be born again, 
Or drink the wrath of God," 

in an eternal hell. But many refuse the proifered 
salvation, die in their sins, and are forever lost. 

Now, against these plain Scriptures, it is vain to 
urge abstract reasonings. Must not, say these men, 
punishment be proportional to crime: and if so, does 
it not follow, that those who have sinned less than 
others, must be punished less, and so at last cease 
to suffer, when they have suffered their portion. To 
this, the answer is very simple. To all men the pun- 
ishment is everlasting, as to duration, but the Bible 
represents it as differing in degree. The servant who 
knew his lord's will, and did it not, shall be beaten 
with many stripes — shall suffer a more severe punish- 
ment, than he who knew not his lord's will. In the 
future state, the degrees of punishment, as also, the 
degrees of happiness, will differ, but will all be alike 
in duration. 

Another consideration leads us to the same con- 
clusion; it cannot be doubted that the wicked in hell, 
will gnaw their tongues for pain, and blaspheme God. 
Fiendish wickedness will be their employment. But 
this wickedness must be followed by its proper punish- 
ment; and thus, eternity of torment, and that a pro- 
gressive torment, is before every impenitent, lost soul. 
He must become in the course of ages, a giant devil. 

Again : The modern doctrine of universal salvation, 
admits some punishment in future; but insists that 
after a time, all will be saved. That is, those whom 
the invitations of the gospel, the love of Christ ex- 
hibited therein, and all the means of grace, failed to 
convert unto God, are condemned to hell for a time ; 
and there, by some more efficacious process than 
Christ and his church could use, are soon converted 
and fitted for heaven ! That is, the devil is a more 
successful preacher than Jesus Christ. Hell a more 
hopeful place for conversion than earth ! Christ con- 



universalist's objection. 239 

verts whom he can here, and the difficult cases are 
ptit into more powerful hands ! Oh, horrible impiety ! 

Lastly, The same reasoning, which would reject the 
doctrine of endless punishment, because of its incon- 
sistency with the love and compassion of God, would 
reject all punishment: for, manifestly, if punishment 
can be dispensed with, in any degree, it can be, in 
every degree. If the divine compassion is inconsis- 
tent with the infliction of pain upon the creature, for 
one part of duration, it must equally so for another. 

To this, it will be answered, that punishment must 
be proportioned to crime. Some punishment is due 
to every crime, and the more crime, the more punish- 
ment. 

I reply, that the only power to determine the mea- 
sure of penal suffering, is the power of the lawgiver. 
Who shall grade the rewards of iniquity ? Who shall 
fix the quantum or duration, if not God himself? But 
if God in his law fixes and grades the punishment of 
crime, is it not manifest that we are wholly dependent 
upon revelation for our knowledge of both ? Where, 
but in the Bible, can we find any certain decision as 
to either? Human legislators are competent, within 
their sphere, to graduate crime and punishment ; but 
their sphere is earth: this life only, is subject to their 
control: they never pretend to do more than punish 
for injuries done to society: they leave vengeance to 
Him, to whom alone it belongeth. What maybe the 
amount and duration of pain due to sin, no man ever 
pretended to say. And the reason is obvious; man 
has no measure of criminality, absolutely ; nor can he 
measure pain and anguish. The possibility of mea- 
suring either, is utterly beyond our reach: conse- 
quently, to strike the grade and proportion, is alto- 
gether impossible. God only can measure crime, and 
He only can apportion its punishment. To the reve- 
lation of his will we must look for light upon this sub- 
ject. And here, as we have seen, the duration of 
punishment described by the same terms, by which 
He describes his own duration; the duration of the 
soul; of heaven and of hell — it is "everlasting fire" 



240 INDEFINITISM. 

— it is ^^ eternal punislimeiit" — it is a "worm that 
never dies" — its victims "shall never enter into my 
rest" — "they shall not see life" — a cooling drop of 
water shall never touch their burning tongues — ^^the 
gulf that separates them from life is impassable — they 
are sealed up in endless despair. 

The doctrine, then, that Christ redeemed and saved 
all^ is untrue. The atonement, therefore, in its ac- 
tual efficacy, as well as in its intrinsic nature, is not 
universal; but particular; not general; but definite. 

EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT. 
SECTION 11. 

OBJECTION SECOND — INDEFINITISM. 

The second theory which lies in our way, concern- 
ing the extent of the atonement, is that of indefini- 
tism : and one of the peculiar difficulties we find in 
meeting it, is the fact of its own indefinite character. 
It assumes several forms, two of which I shall endea- 
vour to arrest and examine. 

1. That Christ died for all men alike. 

2. That he died for no man, or set of men at all, 
but simply to satisfy public justice. 

As to the former of these theories, if I have been 
able to understand the meaning of .its advocates, they 
maintain, that Jesus oflFered himself a sacrifice for the 
whole of the human race : each and every one of the 
natural descendants of Adam are alike included in it, 
and whatever may be the value of the atonement, 
every human being has an ecjual right to it ; and it 
may in truth be said, of every one, Christ sufi*ered and 
died for him, to make atonement for him. This is the 
doctrine of the redemptional Universalists, and these 
w^e have answered. But those with whom we have 
now to do, deny the universality of its application. 
The say, the application of this universal atonement, 
is particular. It becomes actually availing to a 
part only — to those who believe and repent — to the 
elect. 



INDEFINITISM. 241 

To this I answer, 

1. If the atonement be universal, the salvation, 
that is, the actual application of it, must be universal 
too ; or then, the -word atonement cannot be taken in 
the sense of the English word — reconciliation^ restora- 
tion to divine favour; nor can it mean the rendering 
of complete and full satisfaction to God's justice for 
man's sin. Because, manifestly, if the atonement, 
(meaning the reconciliation) be universal, the salva- 
tion is so too. For all who are reconciled, made 
friendly, restored to favour with Grod, are happy, are 
saved. The conception, that persons who are in a 
state of friendship with God, are found in Hell, is 
monstrous. No one can entertain it in his belief. 

Nor can atonement mean satisfaction for their sins: 
because, to suppose that men, whose sins are satisfied 
for, — against whom justice has no demand, shall burn 
in an eternal hell, is to maintain even a more revolt- 
ing blasphemy than in the former case. It is, as we 
have seen, to charge the pure and holy and just God, 
with the most iniquitous crime of exacting full satis- 
faction for their sins from his own Son, until, both the 
Son and the Father testified it finished; and yet of 
inflicting the punishment of these very sins upon 
themselves. 

Thus, if you admit the doctrine of a real satisfac- 
tion to justice, by the sufl*erings of Christ; and if, at 
the same time, you maintain, that this satisfaction is 
for all men, you must maintain that all men are saved, 
or that God sends to eternal torment those — a part of 
those, against whom the law has no demand — whose 
sins Christ has taken away ! 

Such is the dilemma — plain to the common sense 
of all men — in which the advocate of a general, but a 
real atonement, places himself. On one or the other 
of its horns he must hang. If he shrink from the 
idea, that God sends to perdition a part of those, for 
whose sins his justice has received full satisfaction — 
if his soul tremble at such an insinuation — if this horn 
pierce him beyond endurance; then he has no retreat, 
21 



242 INDEFINITISM. 

but into universal redemption ; he must maintain, ac- 
cording to common sense, that all whose sins are 
taken aAvay by the death of Christ, must escape eter- 
nal torment, that is, according to him — all men are 
saved. 

There is thus, no stopping place, betvfeen universal 
atonement^ meaning thereby, full satisfaction to divine 
justice^ and universal salvation. The ideas, there- 
fore, of a general atonement, and a particular re- 
demption, are irreconcilably inconsistent. They are 
contradictories^ and can never agree. 

It by no means relieves, or even alleviates the diffi- 
culty, to say, that Christ, in atoning for the sins of 
all, opened the door for all ; so that all could be saved 
if they would ; but inasmuch as they will not come to 
him, their refusing to come cuts them off. For, 
■whilst it is true, that they refuse to come, and there- 
fore perish; it is also true, that this refusal to come 
is itself a sin — the sin of unbelief — and they are con- 
demned through it. But they could not be condemn- 
ed for it, if it had been taken away by Christ's atone- 
ment ; theref()re, the sin of unbelief remains unatoned 
for, and consequently, it is not true that He took 
away all sin^ of all, by the sacrifice of himself. 

But as I am using Dr. Owen's argument, let me 
state it in his own words. ''If Christ died in the stead 
of all men, and made satisfaction for their sins, then 
he did it for all their sins, or only for some of their sins. 
If for some only, who then can be saved ? if for all, 
why then are not all saved ? They [his opponents] 
say, it is because of their unbelief; they will not be- 
lieve, and therefore, are not saved: that unbelief, is it 
a sin, or is it not ? If it be not, how can it be a cause 
of damnation ? If it be, Christ died for it, or he did 
not. If he did not, then he died not for all the sins 
of all men : if he did, why is this an obstacle to their 
salvation? Is there any new shift to be invented for 
this? or must we be contented with the old, viz: be- 
cause they do not believe : that is, Christ did not die 
for their unbelief, or rather, did not, by his death, re- 
move their unbelief; because they would not believe, or 



INDEFINITISM. 243 

because they would not themBelves remove their unbe- 
lief ; or he died for their unbelief conditionally, that 
they were not believers. These do not appear to me 
to be sober assertions." Owen on Redemption, B. in. 
C. 3. 

This argument has long been opposed by cavil, but 
has never been fairly rebutted. After all that has 
been said in opposition to it, it remains unanswered, 
for the good and sufficient reason, that it is unanswer- 
able. For, manifestly, if Christ by his death took 
away all the sins of all men, he took away the sin of 
unbelief; and consequently, no man can be condemn- 
ed for unbelief; for what is taken away by such a 
sacrifice as Christ ofi'ered, no longer remains, and can 
no longer procure condemnation. But if he did not 
take away this sin of unbelief, '^ by the sacrifice of 
himself," then he left untaken away, the very worst 
sin in all the catalogue of crime : for '' he that be- 
lie veth not, shall be damned." And to affirm that 
Christ satisfied conditionally^ for the sin of unbelief 
in all men, and that their belief is the condition on 
which their unbelief is taken away, is to make the 
removal of unbelief, the condition of its removal! 
Christ's death shall atone for their unbelief, on con- 
dition that they first of themselves become believers. 
God for his sake, will forgive their sin of unbelief 
so soon as it no longer exists ! He will heal their 
disease on condition, that they first heal it them- 
selves ! Christ will save their souls from hell, on con- 
dition that they themselves first escape from hell and 
come to heaven ! Here is the essence of the Pela- 
gian heresy — an attempt to bring in human merit, as 
partially the basis of human salvation. Scarcely can 
the heresy be named which does not grow from some 
cancerous root of Pelagianism. 

The above argument is obviously designed to ope- 
rate upon those, who have scriptural views as to the 
nature of the atonement — who admit, that the Saviour 
did, as the vicarious substitute of his people, oiFer. 
up himself a sacrifice for sin, thereby making satis- 
faction to divine justice and reconciling man to God. 



244 INDEFINITISM. 

And it is fondly hoped, that its simplicity, plainness, 
and force, will lead them to the conclusion, that this 
full and perfect satisfaction, must be followed by full 
and perfect reconciliation: that to maintain, that 
Christ thus acted and suffered for all human persons, 
is to maintain that all human persons must be saved ; 
which is not true — that, therefore. He did not make 
satisfaction for all, but only for those, and for all 
those, who shall go away into everlasting life — for all 
the redeemed. If this conclusion be not admitted, 
then it must be denied, that Christ offered any real 
propitiatory, vicarious sacrifice, and thereby made 
any real, full and complete satisfaction to the claims 
of justice for any sinners whatever. JFor obviously, 
if he suffered alike for all men — if he made atonement 
equally for all men, and yet all men are not saved- — 
salvation is not secured by the atonement at all. If 
Christ paid the price of redemption for all men — if he 
redeemed all men alike, and yet all men are not re- 
deemed, his redemption is worth nothing at all — sal- 
vation is not an effect of it. 

Hence, the first form of indefinitism must be aban- 
doned. There is not a tenable port in the whole ship. 
Every point is assailable, and there is no safety in 
her. Universalism rakes her from stem to stern. 
Paulism, Calvinism, and Christianism, rend her can- 
vass, and pierce her sides, and leave not a solid plank 
in her hull. She is obliged to strike, but first she 
calls in her lagging sister in the rear. 

2. The second form of the doctrine of indefinite 
atonement, claims our attention, viz : That Christ 
Jesus, our Lord, did not make restitution to divine 
justice at all, for the sins of any man, or set of men. 
He did not die for men in such sense as to purchase 
salvation. His object in giving himself up to death, 
was simply to afford an exhibition of God's hatred 
against sin. God was determined to pardon the sins 
of men ; but then to pardon sin — to pass it by, and 
not punish it, might give reason to believe that his 
moral government did not require sin to be punished. 
Thus the confidence of the moral universe in God 



INDEFINITISM. 245 

might be shaken. Holy and righteous beings seeing 
unholy and unrighteous beings admitted to favour 
equally with themselves, might begin to tremble for 
their own safety. If this, say they, may be, what 
prevents a reverse change from occurring ? Why 
may not holy beings be thrust down to hell, in vio- 
lation of justice, if unholy beings may be raised up to 
heaven in violation of justice ? Thus the pillars of 
Jehovah's throne begin to totter: the moral fabric of 
the universe to vacillate. To prevent this, and to 
give firmness to the system — to establish public jus- 
tice and so to secure the rights of the universe, God 
holds up in the sufferings of his own Son, an awful 
display of his hatred against sin : and so • gives 
assurance, that whilst he does pardon sinners, he 
yet hates sin. To illustrate and enforce this theory, 
an old scholastic distinction of justice is some- 
times adopted. Justice, say the friends of this sys- 
tem, is divided into three kinds ; viz : commutativey 
distributive and public. 

" Commutative justice respects property only. 'It 
consists in an equal exchange of benefits,' or in resto- 
ring to man his own." 

'^ Distributive justice respects the moral character 
of men. It respects them as accountable creatures, 
obedient or disobedient. It consists in ascertaining 
their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just rewards, or 
inflicting just punishments." 

''Public or general justice, respects what is fit or 
right as to the character of God, and the good of the 
universe. In this sense, justice comprises all moral 
goodness, and properly means the righteousness or 
rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, 
with a supreme regard to the greatest good. Justice, 
considered in this view, forbids that any thing should 
take place in the great plan of God, which would tar- 
nish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law." 

Such is the surgical operations which the old scho- 
lastic, theological dissecting knife, in modern hands, 
has performed upon a simple and indivisible attribute 
of God ! The demonstration then proceeds. " Did 
21* 



246 INDEFINITISM. 

Christ satisfy commutative justice ? Certainly not." 
That is, for sins about property, Christ has made no 
satisfaction ! He has made no restitution ; restored 
nothing to the violated law." So, distributive jus- 
tice Christ did not satisfy. For all sins respecting 
moral character he made no distribution ! Paul is 
now as deserving of hell torment as Judas is ! 

But public justice Christ did satisfy. Christ's 
atonement rendered it right and proper to forgive sin. 
Such forgiveness is consistent with the good of the 
universe. Public justice is perfectly satisfied by the 
death of Christ.* 

Now, in view of such representations, you will please 
to remember, that the doctrine of vicarious substitu- 
tion, representation and consequent imputation of the 
believer's sin to Christ, and of Christ's righteousness 
to the believer, is denied by these moral dissectors of 
God's justice. Jesus bore no sin — he was not held 
by the law of God as responsible for the sins of his 
people. There is a moral sensitiveness, or I might 
say, sentimentaUsm, connected with the error we com- 
bat, which shudders at the doctrine of sin being im- 
puted to Christ and of his being held guilty in the eye 
of the law. That Christ should be viewed as a sin- 
ner, and treated by the law as an offender, for the 
sins of his people, is a thought too horrible for the 
delicate sensibility of a Pelagian heart. Whereas the 
Bible says, " he hath made him to be sin for us, who 
knew no sin." 2 Cor. v. 21. He was held and ac- 
counted a sinner and consequently suffered. Recol- 
lecting these, let us remark on the above distinction 
and the scheme it is adduced to support. 

1. The distinction has no foundation in the word of 
God. Not one text, it is believed, or allusion of scripture 
can be fairly adduced to support it. Where does the 
Bible say any thing about public justice? The pas- 
sage, (Rom. iii. 21,) ''But now the righteousness of 
God without the law, is manifested, being witnessed 
by the law and the prophets," is, indeed, brought for- 

i^ * See Dr. Moxcey, quoted in Ridgley, ii, 276, note. 



INDEFINITISM. 247 

ward by the author quoted above, and its terms trans- 
posed, and its meaning, as I think, perverted. In the 
preceding part of the chapter, Paul had shown, not 
that public justice had been violated — he knew of no 
such thing — but that men had individually sinned, 
and were individually deserving of death. The sins, 
which he particularizes, are chiefly of the very kind 
which the distinctions we oppose classify under of- 
fences against commutative and distributive justice. 
And yet Paul is made to teach that public justice 
alone is satisfied ! 

2. This division of divine justice has no foundation 
in sound philosophy, that is, in common sense. Jus- 
tice is that, in a moral being, which leads him to act 
rightly, — according to the laws of morality, in refer- 
ence to others, — to give to every one his due. It is 
the same principle, as to its essential nature, in the 
humblest private individual, the mightiest earthly 
monarch and the eternal Judge. The ten thousand 
modes of its manifestation modify not its nature, but 
only its form of expression. To administer justice, is 
to give to every one what is right— what the rule of 
law, under which he is placed, allows to him. To 
give him more or less, is injustice. When we say, 
G-od is just, the meaning plainly is, that He gives to 
his creatures what is due to them, agreeably to the 
law under which he has placed them. 

3. On this scheme, which denies the imputation of 
the sins of his people to Christ, it is no easy matter to 
see how public justice, in the sense even of those who 
hold the distinction, can be satisfied. Jesus Christ is 
not viewed by the law as a sinner ; the sins of his people 
are not imputed to him ; he is not liable to punishment 
on their account; he was not the substitute, the repre- 
sentative of his people; he did not act for them or 
suffer for them as a vicarious person. Such are the 
grounds held, and to account for Christ's sufferings, 
and man's salvation, they say he died to satisfy pub- 
lic justice ! ''Perfect justice, therefore, is done to the 
universe, though all transgressors be not punished 
according to their personal demerit." Perfect justice 



248 INDEFINITISM. 

is done, tliougli justice is not at all administered! 
Transgressors are not punished; yet perfect justice is 
done! 

But even this is not the weakest nor tha tenderest 
point. ''Perfect justice is done," How? By God's 
putting the bitter cup of his wrath into the hands of 
his own Son; although that Son had himself done no 
wrong, nor Avas he in law, according to these men, 
accountable for the sin of any others. No sin is im- 
puted to him, either of his own or his people's, and 
yet he suffers, bleeds, and dies in extreme agony! 
The Lamb of God, holy, harmless, undefiled and sepa- 
rate from sinners ; no guile in his mouth, no guilt on 
his head — no endless catalogue of his people's sins 
laid upon him; heaven, earth, and hell testify ''he did 
no evil" — yet him it pleased the eternal Judge to 
bruise! "Perfect justice is done." If this be "per- 
fect justice," who will define perfect injustice? Where, 
out of hell, or in it, shall we search for that transac- 
tion, which shall be held up before the moral universe 
as the most illustrious and revolting instance of unal- 
loyed iniquity, impiety and injustice? If this be an 
"exhibition" of God's hatred against sin; Oh, where, 
in his wide universe, shall we search for an exhibition 
of His love to holiness ? If the deep groans of Geth- 
semane, and the piercing shriek of Calvary, are un- 
availing to remove this cup, and yet no sin was imputed 
to Jesus, to what transaction shall we turn our eyes 
as the monster cruelty of this universe ? 

Look at the case, with the unclouded eye of calm 
reason. The Son of God does suffer. But, says the 
system we combat, He is not guilty; he has no sin of 
his own; no sin of others is imputed to him, which 
can be the just moral cause of his death; he dies, not 
to satisfy the law for his people's sins, but only to ex- 
hibit God's hatred against sin in general, and to give 
assurance to the moral universe that God is just whilst 
he forgives sin ; and so to quiet the fears of holy angels 
and men, and rivet the convictions of unholy angels 
and men, that God is just. 

Now I ask, can you conceive of a more dreadful act 



SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. 249 

of injustice than is presented in the sufferings of 
Christ, on the supposition, that his people's sin is not 
imputed to him ? If you cannot, I ask again, how can 
this give security to the moral universe ? Must it not 
do exactly the contrary? May not Gabriel say, If 
Jesus thus suffered, having no sin to account for, of 
his own or any others', may not I also, and all this 
shining host be brought to endure such degradation 
and anguish ? Where is our security ; whose head so 
high as not to be thus bowed down ? Whose crown so 
safe, as not to be thus cast to the dust ? 

We return then, dear reader, to the simple and 
glorious doctrine of salvation, by and through the vi- 
carious obedience and death of our divine Surety. 
He bore our sins in his own body on the tree. Thus 
God's justice is satisfied and calls for our deliverance 
from death, and restoration to eternal joys. Here is 
nothing indefinite — nothing uncertain — nothing con- 
ditional; here is "an everlasting covenant with you, 
even the SURE mercies of David." 



SECTION III. 

THE INTRINSIC SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. 

We have been shut up, by an examination into the 
nature of that special form of moral government, 
which God has extended over man, and by an inspec- 
tion of its principles, as they are applied in the cove- 
nant of grace, to the conclusion, that the death of the 
Son of God, rendered a true, proper, and vicarious 
satisfaction to divine justice, for all the sins of all the 
saved; and that this, its essential nature, is the very 
thing, in the atonement, which secii7^es the salvation 
of all God's people. The legal restitution which 
Christ, as their representative, rendered to the law 
for his people, renders their salvation sure and cer- 
tain, as a matter of right to their Saviour. 

But it is said, is not Christ's death with its attend- 
ant sufferings, intrinsically of itself, sufficient for the 



250 SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. 

salvation of all mankind? Is not his atonement of 
sufficient value for the redemption of all men ? Is it 
not of infinite worth, and therefore, sufficient for all? 
And may we not therefore say, he died for all? 

To these interrogations a serious and calm response 
is due: and, 

1. As to the sufficiency of the atonement. 

It is plain, that the sufficiency of any penal satis- 
faction, depends entirely upon the law prescribing it. 
The will of God only^ can define what the law shall 
demand as a satisfaction. That, and that only, is 
sufficient^ which meets the precise claim of justice. 
Less than this, Christ could not offer, and close the 
offering by saying, ''it is finished:" more than this, 
God could not put into the cup of his sorrows. 

2. I must think, that the honour done to divine 
justice, by the death of Christ, is equally great, as if 
all the race of Adam had been left to drink the wrath 
divine, for ever. Consequently, the stability of God's 
moral government is as complete, as if man had 
never sinned. God has given to the moral universe, 
in the infliction of this punishment upon his own Son, 
for the sins of his people, the highest testimony of 
which we know any thing, of his hatred towards sin ; 
as he has given in his resurrection, and the salvation 
of all for whom He prays the Father, the most illus- 
trious display of his righteous regard to his own 
righteous law. 

3. I must also think, that the degree of the suffer- 
ings of Jesus has nothing to do with the number of 
the finally saved. The penalty of the law is the same, 
whether one or two, or a thousand persons are con- 
cerned. Whether the Father gives ten millions to 
his Son as the reward of his service, or ten million 
times ten million, the obedience and sufferings of 
Jesus are the same. It was for him to meet the 
clainjs of law. But the demand of law was obedience 
and death. This obedience to the precept, and this 
meeting of the penalty is the same, whether one man 
or the whole race are to be saved. I have, therefore, 
no sympathy with the doctrine, that the sufferings of 



SUFFICIENCY OF THE ATONEMENT. 251 

Jesus must have been graduated according to the 
number of the saved ; so that if the number were in- 
creased, there must be a pro rata increase to his suf- 
ferings. This doctrine seems to be founded on the 
hypothesis of a scale to measure pains : at least, it 
questions the correctness of a principle sanctioned by 
sound laws among men, viz : that penal inflictions have 
no regard to the number of persons implicated. If 
one man be murdered by one man, the one murderer 
only is put to death : if ten men be murdered by one, 
the penalty is the same — one man only dies: if ten 
men are concerned in the murder of one, the ten must 
be put to death. The law connects sin and death. 
Here again, let me call your attention to the identity 
of principle in the doctrines of grace, and the morality 
of the common laws which govern society. Let us 
ever bear in mind, that God has made it necessary for 
man to act, in the affairs of this life, to a large extent, 
upon the great principles embodied in the covenants. 
The truths of religion are none other than the eternal 
truths of unchanging morality. 

If, then, the sufferings of the Redeemer must be the 
same, whether one or one million be the number of 
his people; and if the number can be defined by none 
but God himself, the question concerning the extent 
of the atonement is, in reality, a mere question of 
fact — does God save all men ? Did the Father give 
all men to Christ as his peculiar people? Did Christ 
undertake, in the covenant of grace, to bring all hu- 
man beings to eternal glory? And these amount to 
the inquiry — are all men saved?' For surely, all that 
the Father hath given him, he hath kept, and will 
raise them up at the last day. John xvii. 6 — 12. "I 
pray for them ; I pray not for the world ; but for 
them which thou hast given me." Was it the design 
and purpose of Christ, when he paid the ransom, to 
deliver by it, the whole of mankind ? If it w\as not 
his purpose, then, in no sense can it be said, he re- 
deemed all men— in no sense can it be said, he made 
atonement for all. Jesus, by appointment of the Fa- 
ther, suffered the penalty of the law. Now, the per- 



252 FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT. 

sons who are to be saved by his death, are those for 
whom he made atonement. He could not have suf- 
fered at all, unless the sins of his people had been laid 
upon him. These sins were laid upon him by the Fa- 
ther — ^' the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us 
all." Isa. liii. 6. And in the preceding verse, the 
prophet defines the phrase, ''us all," w^hen he says, 
" with his stripes we are healed." The sins of all the 
persons who are healed, were laid on Christ by the 
Father. Thus, as we have already seen, the very 
nature of the transaction defines its limit. The inteii- 
tion of the Father, and the Son, is abundantly re- 
vealed: it is to save his people — to redeem them from 
all iniquity — "I pray for them; I pray not for the 
w^orld, but for them which thou hast given me"- — 
Unless, therefore, it can be shown, that the intention 
of the Father, and the Son was, and is, to save all 
mankind — that is, unless it was their intention to do 
what the Bible tells us never shall be done — it remains 
true, that the atonement was made for the saved only, 
and not at all for the damned. Jesus never intended 
to bring to eternal life, those of whom he says, 'Hhese 
shall go away into eternal punishment;" ''depart 
from me, ye cursed, I never knew you." Now this 
inteiition is the limit and bound of the atonement. 
It is the iiitention that constitutes it an atonement. 
Whilst, therefore, it remains an admitted and glorious 
truth, that the satisfaction is sufficient, because it is a 
satisfaction ; and the atonement infinitely valuable in 
itself, still it is an atonement, and satisfaction made 
only for the flock of the great Shepherd. 

SECTION IV. 

BUT CHRIST DIED IN SOME SENSE FOR ALL MEN. 

There is yet another shade of the doctrine of gene- 
ral atonement, to be noticed very briefly, viz: that, 
as the surgeon of a regiment, is the surgeon of every 
man in it, so that every soldier and officer may point 
to him, and say, 'that is my surgeon,' so is Christ the 
Saviour of all the world; so that every man may say, 



RESPITE — CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 253 

' that is my Saviour.' As every soldier has a right to 
call upon the surgeon, so every sinner has a right to 
call upon Christ. 

This comparison is fallacious. 

1. Because the military surgeon is employed and 
paid for his services ; and those services are a part of 
the consideration in the contract between the soldier 
and his government, at the time he enlisted, and he 
has a right, which he can enforce, to command the 
services of the surgeon. But the great Physician 
renders all his services gratuitously. 2. Because, the 
regiment is put under the surgeon's care — the Avhole 
regiment. He is not the surgeon of the whole army. 
His duties do not call him beyond his own specific 
charge. Now, here the comparison holds in part. 
The great Physician has his specific charge. He is not 
bound, nor does he administer his spiritual medicines 
to the soldiers of another leader : the legions of the 
damned are not healed by the great Physician : nor 
can they in truth affirm, *^'he is our physician." 
3. Because, the comparison is deficient in another 
respect. All the soldiers of the regiment do not need 
the services of a surgeon — that necessity is a contin- 
gency. But all his spiritual army, who are by the 
Lord of Hosts, put under the Captain of Salvation, do 
need his healing medicines, and are utterly unable to 
perform any services in the ranks, until after He shall 
have applied the b?^im of Gilead to the healing of 
their hurt. To make the comparison hold, every sol- 
dier must be in the hospital, (or in the grave,) and 
utterly helpless ; and the surgeon must be bound to 
restore every man of them to the ranks, and ensure 
his life through the war. 

Reasonings, from these loose analogies, are very un- 
safe. 

SECTION V. 

ALL MEN ENJOY A RESPITE FROM DEATH AND HELL, IN CONSEQUENCE 

OF Christ's atonement. 

Here is a sense in which it can be said the atone- 
ment is general. If the meaning be, that wicked, uu- 

22 



254 RESPITE — CHRIST'S ATONEMENT. 

believing men — men who finally perish, do experience 
many temporal blessings, and a respite from eternal 
burnings, as a consequence of the satisfaction of 
Christ, I admit it. If there had been ten righteous 
men in Sodom, it would not have been destroyed. 
This is a clear Bible principle. Man by sin, forfeited 
that right to food and clothing which God gave to him 
at his creation ; and the right can be restored only 
by a reversion of the act of forfeiture. Thus, true 
believers in Christ have, in and through him, a right 
to their daily bread. The righteous, and the right- 
eous only, have a promise in the Bible, of food and 
all other necessaries. And because the present race 
of wicked men are the forefathers of a race, who 
are or shall be the seed of the blessed, they are 
spared. Thus the world of ungodly men are saved 
from death, for a time, by the good providence of 
our Heavenly Father, "the living God, who is the 
Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe.'' ^1 
Tim. iv. 10. And this I take to be the true meaning 
of the passage. This phrase, "the living God," is not 
applied in the Scriptures as a distinguishing epithet of 
Christ; but as descriptive of the Father, as the God 
of providence. The Apostle is speaking of trust in 
God, not as to the direct matter of salvation, but as 
to temporal good things — the bounties of providence. 
God saves men from death, and bestows his favours 
upon all men ; but has, and exercises a special regard 
to them that believe. 

Yet, whilst these things are so, it appears to me 
altogether improper to say, that the atonement is for 
all men. The circumstance of the unbelieving and 
ungodly world deriving benefit, incidentally^ from the 
atonement, by no means justifies the language, that it 
was made for them. 



255 



CHAPTER XVII. 

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF A LIMITED 
ATONEMENT FOUNDE] 
TED AND ANSWERED 



ATONEMENT FOUNDED ON PARTICULAR TEXTS, STA- 



It will not be expected, that I should take up and 
respond to all the arguments for all kinds of indefi- 
nite and universal atonement, which claim a founda- 
tian in some text of Scripture. This work has been 
done by various hands ; and the reader is referred to 
Dr. Owen's ''Death of death, in the death of Christ/' 
for a most masterly exposition of all these passages, 
(b. iv. c. ii. — V.) AH that the nature of my under- 
taking will allow, is a refutation of a few of the 
stronger arguments, by a fair exposition of the pas- 
sages on which they are attempted to be founded. 
And first, let us lay down the principle of interpreta- 
tion upon which we proceed ; 

Viz : General terms must be restricted and under- 
stood, in consistency with the nature of the subject 
discussed, and the general drift and meaning of the 
writer. This rule is well established amongst critics ; 
as to common sense it is obviously true. Let us ap- 
ply it to a few of the texts supposed to teach indefi- 
nite atonement. There are two classes of these texts ; 
those where the term world occurs, or whole world; 
and where the term all or every, occurs. 

SECTION I. 

ARGUMENTS FROM THE TERM, WORLD, ANSWERED. 

The very strongest perhaps, is 1 John ii. 1, 2, 
'^ And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the 
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous ; and he is the 
propitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, but 
also for the sins of the whole world." Hence it is 
argued, that in some sense, Christ is the propitiation 



256 ARGUMENTS FROM THE 

for the sins of all men^ or the wTiole world means all 
men. 

The point toward a fair exposition here, is to settle 
the meaning of proptYza^zW. The Greek word, l^a^ixo^^ 
is used in the New Testament in only one other place, 
viz: 1 John iv. 10. God ''sent his Son to be the 
propitiation for our sins." It is used in the Septua- 
gint five times ; Am. viii. 14. " They swear by the sin 
of Samaria, and say, " Thy God, Dan, liveth." 
Here sin stands for sin-ofiering : and inasmuch as the 
real and efficient sin-offering of the Bible, is also the 
priest who offers it, the object of their idolatrous wor- 
ship, is called their sin-offering or propitiation. So 
it is in Ezek. xliv. 27, " he shall offer his sin-offering 
saith the Lord God" — his sin-offering — that which 
appeases God. Num. v. 8. Here it is translated 
atonement — a sin-offering procuring reconciliation. In 
Psalm cxxx. 4, it is translated forgiveness. ''But 
there is forgiveness with thee" — a propitiatory sacri- 
fice that ensures pardon. The verb is used, Luke 
xviii. 13, "God he merciful to me a sinner" — he pro- 
pitiated^ rendered friendly and so extend pardon. So, 
the only other place in which it occurs, Heb. ii. 17 — 
"to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" — 
to propitiate — to render God friendly and secure for- 
giveness to the people. 

So the kindred word translated propitiation, Rom. 
iii. 25, " whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous- 
ness for the confession of sins :" And, Heb. ix. 5, it is 
translated mercy seat, " the cherubim of glory over- 
shadowing the mercy seat'' — the mercy seat of the 
ark, being an emblem of Christ as the reconciler be- 
tween God and man. 

From all these it is manifest, that propitiation is 
the actual restoring to favour and friendship^ of those 
who were alienated and hostile. This, Jesus does by 
his removing of sin, the cause of enmity between God 
and man, and the consequent procurement and for- 
giveness from God, and gratitude and love from man. 
To render God propitious and man alive to a sense of 



TERM, WORLD, ANSWERED. 257 

divine goodness, is a full idea of propitiation. Now, 
that Jesus is the propitiation — that he has actually 
restored friendship between man and God is certain. 
But to what extent? Has he propitiated God to all 
mankind, and all mankind to God ? Then is universal 
salvation true. But universal salvation is false, there- 
fore Christ has not propitiated all men. What then, 
it may be asked, will you do with the universal terms, 
^'the whole world ?" I remark, 

2. It is manifest in the very words themselves, that 
all men absolutely are not meant : because he is speak- 
ing expressly of believers, ^'little children," such as 
rest with childlike credulity upon their Father's word 
— children in knowledge, many of whom were for 
limiting salvation to the Jews, and could scarce en- 
dure a Gentile believer to come into the church, ex- 
cept at the door of circumcision. The opposition that 
the Apostle makes between us and the world, in this 
very place, is sufficient to manifest unto whom he 
wrote. So, John says, (Gospel xi. 51, 52,) '^ he pro- 
phesied that Jesus should die for that nation. And 
not for that nation only, but that also he should ga- 
ther together in one," all men of all nations? — no — 
"but the children of God that were scattered abroad" 
among all nations. To this, the passage before us is 
a parallel: Jesus is the propitiation — he restores to 
friendship the children of God, not only among us 
Jews, but also, those scattered over the whole world. 

3. The phrase, whole world^ is by the other terms 
of the text, and by the general drift of this writer, 
limited to ''the whole world" of God's children — the 
entire body of his redeemed ones. That the words 
do not in every place necessarily mean all mankind, 
it will be sufficient for us to show. For, if sometimes 
the general terms are, by necessity, restricted, we are 
under no obligation to admit them as absolutely uni- 
versal here. Dr. Owen thinks, that there is but a 
single case in which they must thus be understood. 
(1) We quote Luke, ii. 1. — '' there went out a decree 
from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be tax- 
ed." Here all the world is certainly no more than the 

22* 



258 ARGUMENTS EROM THE 

Koman empire. It will not affect this, that the terms 
are different, (Ttdcrav tiiv olxoviJiEVTjv) they are equivalent 
to whole world — all the inhabited earth. Now, is it 
true, that all the inhabited earth, that is, all men, were 
included in this decree ? Clearly, the general term 
is limited by the sense and the connexion. 

(2) Col. i. 6. " The gospel is come unto you as it is 
in all the world." Does all the world here mean, ab- 
solutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all 
men absolutely heard the gospel ? Why then do we 
still labour to send missionaries? Manifestly, the 
universal terms must be restricted by the sense and 
connexion. All the world^ can therefore, only mean, 
that the gospel, instead of being confined to the land 
of Judea and the lost sheep of the house of Israel, is 
gone abroad, without restraint, into very many places. 

(3) Very similar to this, is Rom. i. 8. — ''your faith 
is spoken of throughout the whole world" {^v o-kt^ t;^ 
3cocy^9.) Must this mean, that the faith of the Roman 
believers was known and spoken of by all the race of 
man ? Did one man out of every ten thousand in the 
Roman empire know any thing of it? But, moreover, 
this speaking about their faith, is approbatory : they 
who spake of it, commended it. Did all the people of 
Rome, and of the empire, and of all other nations, ad- 
mire and commend the faith of the handful of obscure 
believers at Rome? The thing is incredible. What 
then does he mean ? Obviously, the believing world — 
the world of believers. The disciples eve7y where heard 
of their faith and thanked God for it. The whole world 
here, is equivalent to the whole body of believers. 

(4) 1. John V. 19. ''We know that we are of God, 
and the whole world lieth in wickedness." Here is 
the same phraseology, and in the same epistle: what 
does it mean ? All men ! every individual of the 
race! Why, the first clause says nay, "we know that 
we are of God :" and can they be of God and yet lie 
in wickedness ! Evidently therefore, the whole world 
here means, the w^orld of unconverted men — all the 
race, except the children of God who have tasted of 
his grace. NoW; if it is undeniable, that the univer- 



TERM, WORLD, ANSWERED. 259 

sal phrase ivJiole worlds here means only the world of 
unconverted men ; by what rule are we bound to un- 
derstand the same phrase in chapter ii. 2, as abso- 
lutely universal ? There exists as clear and cogent 
reasons for limiting it there, to the world of believers, 
as here, to limit it to the world of unbelievers. Rev. 
iii. 10. ''I will keep thee from the hour of tempta- 
tion, which shall come upon all the world." 

(5) Rev. xii. 9. ^'That old serpent, called the devil, 
and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world." Yet, 
the Bible tells us, that the devil would, if it were pos- 
sible, deceive the very elect; plainly intimating that 
it is not possible, and this the former text proves. 
God so exercises his divine power and grace, that 
Satan, working with all his skill, through the emissa- 
ries of Rome, shall yet not succeed in deceiving the 
true church. The whole world here is the mass of 
unbelieving men, to the exclusion of those who won- 
dered not after the beast. 

(6) Rev. xiii. 3. ''All the world wondered after the 
beast." Here, all the world means only the apostate 
Roman Catholic Church, not all the human race, nor 
even all the world of nominal christians; God always 
had a chosen generation, who never bowed the knee 
to the thirty thousand gods of pagan or of christian 
Rome. 

It is surely unnecessary to prosecute the investiga- 
tion. The Greek term for world^ signifies any organ- 
ized and arranged system, and so it is applied to the 
system of a woman's dress. Peter says of christian 
women, ''whose adorning," (whose world) let it not 
consist in external arrangements, but in internal 
graces. Even the strong phrase whole world^ does 
never mean all men ; but only all of the class referred 
to. So, in the passage before us, Jesus is the propi- 
tiation, not only for the sins of us Jewish believers, 
but of the whole world of redeemed men — the whole 
body of the elect. 



260 ARGUMENTS FROM THE 



SECTION 11. 

THE ARGUMENTS FROM THE GENERAL TERM, ALL, STATED AND 

ANSWERED. 

The advocates of a general atonement build much 
upon those expressions of scripture, where the general 
term, all^ is applied to the saved. Let us examine a 
few of the cases chiefly relied on : and let us keep in 
view the rule of interpretation, which limits general 
terms by the sense and connexion. 

1. The passage, 1 Tim. ii. 4, 6, is a chief depen- 
dence—^^ who will have all men to be saved and to 
come to the knowledge of the truth." Christ ''gave 
himself a ransom for all." Hence it is inferred, that 
Christ died equally for all men : (the atonement was 
made for all men.) 

It is plain, that the whole force of the inference 
rests upon the vagueness of the term all — all men. If 
this does mean all and every one of the human race, 
absolutely; then, not only is general atonement, but 
universal salvation also, true. The entire argument, 
therefore, turns upon the single word all. If all and 
all men^ always, and every where in the Bible does, 
and must necessarily, include the entire race, we con- 
cede the argument ; but if, as we have seen, it never 
is so used in the Bible, or at least very rarely, then no 
reason forbids our limiting it here according to the 
sense and connexion. 

The Greek word for all^ occurs more than twelve 
hundred times in the New Testament, and therefore 
we cannot examine all places. It occurs twenty-four 
times in 1 Tim. Now, if in a majority of them, it 
cannot possibly be understood in its absolutely uni- 
versal sense, it ought to relieve us from all difficulty 
with it in this argument. Let us then advert briefly 
to those cases in the twenty-four, where the interpre- 
tations must be restricted. Ch. i. 16, — '' That in me 
first, Jesus Christ might show forth all long sufl*ering." 
Will any man aver thence, that the totality, the whole 
of God's long suffering was in Paul? Has Jesus never 



TEEM, ALL, ANSWERED. 261 

shown any long-suffering in any but Paul ! Such is 
the absurdity, and the falsehood, which the general 
construction would force upon the Apostle's language. 
What then does he mean? Any child in interpreta- 
tion, might tell. He means to affirm, that a large 
measure — a great deal of divine forbearance had been 
displayed in his case. 

Ch. ii. 1. " I exhort therefore, that first of ally sup- 
plications, &c. be made." The first of all, is con- 
nected with the exhortation — but if not, it affects not 
the argument. Did Paul mean that the first thing of 
all in the universe, that should be done, should be to 
pray for all ? The persons addressed must not bend 
the knee — they must not meet for prayer, they must 
not eat, or sleep, or stand, or walk, or breathe, until 
they prayed for all ! Nay, but the plain meaning is, 
that in a very special manner, and very largely/, chris- 
tians should pray. 

Ch. ii. 1, ^^ prayers, &c., for all men." Does he 
mean here, that we shall pray for the dead ? for the 
lost: for those of whom John says, "there is a sin 
unto death, I do not say that he shall pray for it ;" 
for those of whom Jesus says, "I pray not for the 
world ?" To assert that all, here, includes the whole 
race of men absolutely, is to affirm what Jesus, and 
John, his servant, and the general current of scripture 
denies. What then does the Apostle mean by all men? 
Let himself answer. ''For kings and for all that are 
in authority." In those times of persecution, the 
saints might be tempted to invoke curses upon their 
enemies. By no means, says the Apostle, wicked 
and unreasonable as they are, pray for all descriptions 
of men. Ch. ii. 2, "for all that are in authority." 
Here the general term all is limited to persons in 
office, exercising power. 

Ch. ii. 2, "in all godliness and honesty." Surely, 
it was far from the Apostle's mind to intimate, that 
those to whom he addresses himself, had the sum total 
of all godliness and honesty treasured up in them- 
selves! Nay, but that godliness and honesty, to a 
large extent may be manifested in and by them. 



262 ARGUMENTS FROM THE 

Ch. il. 8. " I will, therefore, that men pray every 
where." [Greek, in all places.] Does he mean all^ ab- 
solutely ? Must men pray in all places ! Then they 
must he in all places ! The injunction cannot be com- 
plied with until men possess ubiquity ! How then ? 
Manifestly, in every place where their lot may be 
cast. 

Ch. ii. 11. ^'Let the woman learn in silence with 
all subjection." Does Paul teach that female submis- 
sion has no limit — that she must be subject to all men 
and in all degrees ? This is preposterous. What 
then? Clearly that a woman must submit to her own 
husband in all things laivful and right, 

Ch. iii. 4 — " having his children in subjection with 
all gravity." Can any one man or set of men, possess 
all gravity — so that there shall be no grave deport- 
ment with any besides ? 

Ch. iii. 11 — Women — wives of deacons, are to ^^be 
grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things." 
Are all things absolutely obligatory upon the wives of 
deacons ? Must they do all the things of the world? 
Nay, but all the things that lie within their proper 
province. They could not possibly be faithful, if they 
meddled with all things absolutely. 

Ch. iv. 4 — '^For every creature of God is good." 
Here the Greek word is the same. But is it true in 
the universal sense ? Is the devil good, if his visits 
be received with thanksgivings? Manifestly, every 
creature is to be limited to the eatables of which the 
Apostle is speaking in the place. 

Ch. iv. 8— '^ godliness is profitable unto aZZ things," 
— all states and conditions of men. Is godliness pro- 
fitable to the ungodly who have it not ? Is godliness 
profitable to the possessor in all things, when it occa- 
sions his persecution and death ? Nay, but it is pro- 
fitable unto all the things referred to. 

Ch. iv. 15 — ^'that thy profiting may appear unto 
all" — or may appear m all things. What ? In all and 
every thing ; or in all the things in which he labour- 
ed ? Meditate upon these things — give thyself wholly 
to them ; that thy profiting in them all, may appear. 



TEEM, ALL, ANSWERED. 2G3 

Manifestly, the all^ here, is limited by the things 
spoken of. 

Ch. V. 2 — " Entreat the elder women as mothers, 
the younger as sisters, with all purity." Is there to 
he no purity but with Timothy : must the term all be 
taken in its universal sense ? This were to make the 
passage nonsense. 

Ch. V. 10 — "If she have diligently followed every 
good work.'' Here, to insist on the absolute univer- 
sality of the term, is to make all the good works in 
the universe the objects of actual pursuit of every 
good woman. 

Ch. V. 20 — "them that sin rebuke before alV 
Does the all here mean all universally ? Or does the 
Apostle merely insist, that offenders shall be publicly 
reproved — that is reproved before a great number — 
the whole congregation ? 

Ch. vi. 1. "Let as many servants as are under the 
yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honour." 
Can any one believe that Paul's design here, is to 
make a God of the master and an idolater of his ser- 
vant ? Is the servant to account no being but his own 
master worthy of honour? Or does he intend only, to 
urge servants to bestow upon their masters all due 
honour, and to kings and the Lord of kings, still 
higher honour? "Fear God, honour the king." No 
man can believe that all, here, is to be taken in its 
universal meaning. 

Ch. vi. 10 — "the love of money is the root of all 
evil." Is it true in the broadest sense? Was it the 
love of money that " brought death into the world, and 
all our woe ?" And was not the first sin an evil ? It 
is folly to force all the vices in the world into one. 
There are evil passions not a few, where there is the 
utmost contempt for money. In fact, it is but a small 
portion of the ills that flesh is heir to, that can fairly 
be imputed to the love of money, and referred to that 
passion as their root. This phrase of the Apostle, has 
been extensively misunderstood, and great violence 
has been done to common sense, and the context, in 
efforts to make the love of money the only original 



264 ARGUMENTS FROM THE 

vice in the universe, or at least in our world. I think, 
Harris's Mammon, contains some instances of this 
monomania. The truth is, the Apostle does not at 
all say, that the love of money is the root of all evil. 
A very slight defect in the translation, has occasioned 
this forced work among interpreters. Paul says, they 
who desire to be rich, are thereby liable to some pe- 
culiar dangers — he does not say all, '^They fall into 
temptation." Some English Bibles, as Woodward's 
Scott, have it "temptations" — incorrectly. They fall 
"into a snare," this is another evil. They fall into 
"many foolish and hurtful lusts." These also are 
evils, but they are not all^ and Paul does not say they 
are all evils and all lusts. He then adds, " For the 
love of money is the root of all these evils." Nay he 
does not even say the love of money is the root of all, 
as if they had no other root, but only that " the love 
of money is a root of all these evils," viz: the evils 
just referred to. Thus the general term is limited by 
the connexion, according to common sense. 

Ch. vi. 13 — " I give thee charge before God, who 
quickeneth all things." Will any man, however intent 
upon establishing the starting point of the Pelagian 
heresy, aver, that the term all here, must be taken uni- 
versally ? Will he say that God quickeneth ; that is, 
giveth life unto things that have no life ; or will it be 
admitted, that He quickens or gives life to all that 
live ? The universal term is limited, and must be 
limited by the rule under which we act. 

Ch. vi. 17 — "God giveth us richly, all things to 
enjoy." Does any man enjoy all things absolutely; or 
only a small portion of the universal sum of things, 
viz: all the things which he possesses and uses? To 
assert the former is childish ; the latter, therefore, is 
the true construction. 

Thus, in nineteen cases out of the twenty-four, 
there is no reasonable ground to hesitate ; there is, in 
fact, no possibility of giving a rational exposition to 
the passages, without restricting the general term all^ 
and bringing it within the scope of the context. 
Should we run over the whole twelve hundred and 



TERM, ALL, ANSWERED. 265 

fifty cases of the New Testament, I doubt not, we 
would find a similar proportion of unequivocal limita- 
tions. It may, perhaps, appear to the reader, that 
we have been tedious already. Let him remember, 
that here is the salient point of, at least, a majority 
of the errors, that have in modern times distracted 
the church. Consequently, this is the very point at 
which wisdom dictates, we should exercise patience in 
our investigation. Two of the remaining cases are 
identical, Ch. i. 15, and iv. 9. " This is a faithful 
saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ 
came into the world to save sinners," &c. If luorthy 
of all acceptation^ means worthy to be accepted by all, 
then the all must be all sinners, yea, all mankind sin- 
ners^ at the very best : for, that devils should accept 
a saying which is not proffered to them, cannot be 
supposed. The general term must therefore be limited 
to men at least. 

There remain but the three cases which are involv- 
ed in the point at issue ; Ch. ii. 4, 6, and iv. 10. As 
to the last, I have already presented one view of it. 
Should that exposition not prove satisfactory, I fall 
back upon another, viz: He is the Saviour of all men 
who are saved, and especially of faithful saints. He 
extends peculiar care over those who are peculiarly 
faithful to him. To aflBrm that he is the Saviour, in 
a spiritual sense, of those who shall go away into 
eternal fire, is surely to speak contradictions. The 
former view is, however, I think, the true and cor- 
rect one. The living Grod, not Jesus Christ, but the 
sovereign Lord and Father, is the Saviour — the pre- 
server — he supports and feeds all men — particularly, 
his believing people. So is the word Saviour applied 
in this general sense. Othniel, in Judges, iii. 9, is 
called a deliverer — -a Saviour: and 2 Kings, xiii. 5, 
'Hhe Lord gave Israel a Saviour, so that they went 
out from under the hand of the Syrians:" and Neh. 
ix. 27, '^ thou gavest them saviours who saved them 
out of the hand of their enemies." Thus only is God 
the Saviour of all men. He delivers them from many 
evils — it is a temporal, not a spiritual salvation, and 
23 



2GC AKGUMENTS FROM THE 

therefore, the scriptures which speak of it, have noth- 
ing to do with this controversy. 

Therefore, the two texts only remain. Ch. ii. 4, 6. 
Now what reason can exist to force us to take the ge- 
neral term in these two instances, in its most extend- 
ed sense, when in twenty-one out of twenty-four times, 
in this epistle, it must be, and is restricted? Why 
shall the law of construction be set aside here ? 

If this is most unreasonable, then the inquiry will 
be, as to the restriction — what is it, and wherefore its 
necessity ? I answer the context and the sense must 
limit. 

Now, in the preceding, the term all is, by necessity, 
limited in all the former instances. The all men of 
the first universe, is expounded in the second, to mean 
men of all classes, conditions and characters; in con- 
tradistinction to the restricted views of the Jews, who 
seemed often disposed to deny salvation to many 
classes of men. On the contrary, Paul insists, that 
the gospel is no respecter of persons ; but all classes 
and conditions of men are freely urged to accept it, 
for it is God's will that no distinction shall be made 
in the gospel offer. All classes of men — kings, how- 
ever far they may have erred in persecuting the 
church — subordinate rulers — all are invited. The all 
of the fourth is the same as the all of the first verse 
— all kinds and degrees of men. 

But further, the sense restricts the general term. 
If by "will have all men to be saved," is meant, a 
positive determination on the part of God; then it 
must even be so, and all must be saved : or if not, God 
has failed of his purpose ; which to affirm, is blas- 
phemy. If all men absolutely be not saved, then it 
could not be God's will, his fixed determination, that 
they should be saved, all and every one. If by ''will 
have all men to be saved" is meant, that God wills 
absolutely to save men of all descriptions, nations and 
languages, then his purpose is, and shall be accom- 
plished. And thus the sense unites with the connexion 
in defining the extent of the all men. 

So exactly in the sixth verse, where the very same 



TERM, ALL, ANSWERED, 267 



■? ^^^j 



all are spoken of — viz: all the people of God — all 
that will ever see his face in peace — all his sheep for 
whom he prays — not the world of whom he says ''I 
pray not for the world" — but all his redeemed ones — 
all whom he ransomed, by his precious blood — all 
w^hom the Father gave to him — all kinds and classes 
of men to whom he will say, " come ye blessed of my 
Father." 

2. 2 Peter iii. 9. " The Lord is long suffering to us 
w\T;rd, not willing that any should perish, but that all 
should come to repentance." From this it is argued, 
that, as repentance is connected with salvation and 
the atonement, Christ died for all, or he could not 
will, that all should repent and be saved. 

Dr. Owen's response to this is so brief and conclu- 
sive, I shall do little more than simply transcribe it. 
After alluding to the rule of restriction, he proceeds, 

" See then of whom the Apostle is here speaking. 
The Lord, (saith he) is long-suffering to us ward, not 
w^illing that any should perish: will not common sense 
teach us, that (us) is to be repeated in both the fol- 
lowing clauses, to make them up complete and full ? 
viz: not willing that any oi us should perish, but that 
all of us should come to repentance ? Now, who are 
these of whom the Apostle speaks, to whom he WTites? 
Such as had received great and precious promises, 
chap. i. 4; whom he calls beloved, chap. iii. 1. 8; 
whom he opposeth to the scoffers of the last days, 
verse 3 ; to whom the Lord hath respect in the dis- 
posal of these days; who are said to be elect. Matt, 
xxiv. 22. Now, truly, to argiie that because God 
would have none of those to perish, but all of them to 
come to repentance, therefore, he hath the same will 
and mind towards all and every one in the world (even 
those to whom he never makes known his will, nor 
ever calls to repenta^nce, and who never once hear of 
his way of salvation) comes not much short of extreme 
madness and folly." Owen on Redemp. p. 270. 

God wills, that all, who shall see his face in peace, 
and live, and reign with him in everlasting life, should 
come to repentance ; therefore, all who shall pine away 



268 ARGUMENTS FROM THE 

eternally in the land of regrets and endless death, he 
"wills also should come to repentance ! Because he 
wills the salvation of his people, therefore, he wills 
the salvation of the lost also ! Such is the reasoning 
by which general atonement is supported. 

3. Heb. ii. 9. ''But we see Jesus, who was made a 
little [for a little time] lower than the angels, for the 
suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour : 
that he by the grace of God should taste death for 
every man." From this, it is inferred that, as tast- 
ing death means suffering death, the sufferings of 
Christ were for all men in general — the atonement is 
universal. But, says the universalist, if the satisfac- 
ction of Christ is universal — for all men equally — 
then all are saved. 

Here again, the universalist is the sound logician ; 
his argument, granting him the premises, is unanswer- 
able. But, I deny the premises. Every man here 
cannot and does not include all absolutely; but only 
all of whom the Apostle is speaking in the context. 
And, 

1. Man is supplied by the translators; it is not in 
the original: '' should taste death for every" — every 
what ? Doubtless, the ellipsis is to be filled up, with 
such words as include or express the persons of whom 
the Apostle speaks. Who are they to whom he re- 
fers — Whom he names? Are they the ungodly, and 
unbelieving, and finally impenitent ? By no means ; 
for in the next sentence he speaks of them as sons — 
''in bringing many sons unto glory." He speaks of 
them as the trained band to which Christ is the Cap- 
tain of their salvation. And this term Captain — the 
Greek word, means the leader of the way — represent- 
ing Christ as leading the company of God's sons, and 
leading them in the way of salvation. Manifestly, 
then it is for every son of God he should taste death — 
not for every son of perdition. 

Again, in verse 11, he calls them brethren^ and 
affirms their unity with himself, and speaks of them 
as his sanctified ones. " For both he that sanctifieth, 
and they who are sanctified, are all of one ; for which 



TERM, ALL, ANSWERED. 269 

cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren." And 
then repeatedly again, calls them children — children 
given to him by the Father. ''Behold I and the 
children which God hath given me." And in verse 
15, he affirms that he delivers them, who, " through 
fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bond- 
age." Does Christ actually deliver from the fear of 
death, all men universally ? Clearly then, inasmuch 
as the Apostle does not at all, in the context any- 
where, speak of all men absolutely and indefinitely, 
but only of the sons of God, the brethren of Christ, 
the united with him, the sanctified, the children, the 
persons given to him by God ; we cannot, without 
such violence as destroys all the precision of language, 
stretch the general term all^ to cover anything more 
than "all the sons of God" — ''all which the Father 
hath given me." Christ was humbled, "that he by 
the grace of God should taste death for every son.'' 

2. On the ground of the nature of the atonement 
we arrive at the same conclusion. To taste death, is 
to suffer it — to die. And as Christ's death was 
vicarious and made a complete satisfaction to divine 
justice ; hence, every man for whom this satisfaction 
is rendered must, in justice, be delivered from death : 
consequently, the salvation is co-extensive with the 
satisfaction. But of this enough. 

3. The Hebrews were contracted in their views, 
and wished to exclude all but their own nation from 
the benefits of his death : hence, these strong general 
expressions ; as we have before remarked. Every son 
of God, of whatever nation, tribe or people, is in- 
cluded in the compass of Christ's death. 

4. Similar uses of the general phrase occur. Col. i. 
28. "Whom we preach, warning every man and 
teaching every man in all wisdom." Surely, Paul 
does not assert anything so preposterous, as that 
he had warned every man — had taught evei^y man 
— each and all the human race ; and that too, in all 
wisdom — communicated all wisdom, and made the 
whole race omniscient ! But such must be the mean- 
ing, if the universal construction contended for by 

23* 



270 AKGUMENTS FROM THE 

the advocates of general atonement, be correct. The 
extreme absurdity of the conclusion shows the incor- 
rectness of the premises. Whom then did he warn and 
teach? Obviously, every man that came before him. 
AVhat is the all-wisdom ? What, but all that he could 
communicate for the time and opportunities he had. 

5. 1 Cor. XV. 22. ^^For as in Adam all die, even so 
in Christ shall all be made alive." 

Many advocates, of some kind of indefinite or ge- 
neral atonement, less skilful than zealous, have used 
this passage as an argument in their favour. A most 
unhappy selection : they lean upon the point of a 
sword. For, 

1. The Apostle is speaking of the resurrection of 
the body from natural death ; not of the soul from 
spiritual death. Consequently, nothing can w^ith 
safety and fairness be inferred from the passage, as 
to the extent of the atonement. ''But now is Christ 
risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of 
them that slept. For, since by man [the first Adam] 
came death, by man [Christ, the second Adam] came 
also the resurrection of the dead." The sin of the 
first Adam rendered it necessary, according to the 
nature of that moral government under which he was 
placed, that all men should descend to the grave. 
The righteousness and atonement of the second Adam, 
rendered it necessary that all men should rise from 
the grave : and the reason of this moral necessity it is 
not diJ9&cult to perceive. The death of the body is 
included in the penalty; the body is dead because of 
sin: but now the entire persons must be judged and 
punished or rewarded: and therefore, must the souls 
and bodies be again united. But the right, and ofiice 
duty, of the second Adam it is, to judge the world, 
hence, his power it is, that must arrest and bring be- 
fore his own dread tribunal, all who are to be by him 
judged. 

**Lo, a mighty trump, one-half concealed 

In clouds, one-half to mortal eye revealed, 
Shall pour a dreadful note; the piercing call 
Shall rattle in the centre of the ball ; 
'VW extended circuit of creation shake, 
The living die with fear, the dead awake/* 



TERM, ALL, ANSWERED. 271 

This belongs to Christ as mediator, but it is not a 
part of his work of saving men : it is an adjunct of 
his sovereignty as judge. It is not as redeemer he 
raises them from the dead, but as judge, whose it is, 
to do justice — pure, simple, naked justice. The re- 
surrection of the dead is not in itself a blessing. Its 
being a blessing or a curse, depends upon the moral 
character of the raised, and their legal relations. It 
is divine justice and not mercy ^ that demands them to 
arise. Justice demands that the saints shall rise to 
life everlasting: the same justice requires that the 
unsanctified shall rise to shame and everlasting con- 
tempt. But its exercise by Christ, or the right to 
exercise it, depends upon his perfect fulfilment of all 
law. Having fulfilled all law, he must himself rise, 
and being henceforth invested with all power, he must 
exercise that power in the office of final judgment. 
" For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all 
be made alive." The burial is by Adam, the resur- 
rection is by Christ. Then the Apostle proceeds to 
mark the difi*erence amongst the raised. " But every 
man in his own order — his own rank — Christ the first 
fruits ; afterw^ard they that are Christ's at his com- 
ing." He says nothing at all of the other class ; the 
wicked, in this whole discourse: and it may well be 
questioned, whether the all is any more extensive than 
the order mentioned, the saints, who shall shout, '' 
death where is thy sting, grave where is thy vic- 
tory !" ''thanks be to God which giveth us the victory" 
— whom ? Believers, unquestionably. Not a word is 
uttered about the resurrection of unbelievers in the 
w^hole chapter. All God's people sank to the grave 
by Adam, so did ''the children of the wricked one:" 
all God's people are delivered from the grave by 
Christ, so are the children of Satan, but that is not 
a truth here distinctly affirmed. 

2. But, supposing the meaning of the Apostle to be, 
as the argument for general atonement here assumes 
it; that is, suppose the Apostle to speak of spiritual 
death and spiritual resurrection : the passage then 
becomes still more fatal to the indefinite scheme : for 



272 ARGUMENTS FROM THE 

it is a comparison of manner solely: that is, the 
manner of all dying in Adam, is the same precisely, 
as the mariner of all being made alive in Christ. As — 
even so. The precise point, therefore, which the text 
presents for our consideration, is. How did all die in 
Adam? How are all made alive in Christ? Do these 
agree? Is the mode of death and of life the same? 
This last question is affirmed in the text. We have 
only to inquire what is that manner ? How did all die 
in Adam ? We ask the advocates of general atone- 
ment, HOW ? And we can conceive of but one rea- 
sonable answer — All died in Adam federatively — 
legally — he was their moral head, and his sin brought 
death upon all whom he represented — ''by one man's 
oflFence death reigned by one — by the offence of one, 
judgment came upon all." (Rom. v. 18, 19.) The 
question reverts ; Jiow are all made alive in Christ ? 
In precisely the same manner, viz: federatively^ le- 
gally^ he was their moral head, and his righteousness 
brought life upon all of whom he is head — " by the 
obedience of one, shall many be made righteous." 
Who are they that are dead in Adam ? All whom he 
represented — all his children — all that actually died. 
Who are made alive in Christ? All whom he repre- 
sented — all his children — all that are actually made 
alive. The mode of death and of life is the same: 
the extent of each is dependent upon the representa- 
tive character of each, as we have before seen. Now, 
the extent of the dying, and of the making alive, is 
determined in the covenants of works and of grace 
respectively, which as to numbers, is known only to 
God; but he has revealed to us the absolute univer- 
sality of it under the first covenant ; as to the second, 
the fact only reveals the knowledge of it to us. When- 
ever we have evidence that a sinner is born of God, 
we know that he is made alive in Christ, and therefore 
was included in the covenant of grace, and was repre- 
sented by the great Surety. Unless, therefore, absolute 
universality of salvation is maintained — unless all men 
universally are made alive and so saved, we are thrown 
back upon the restriction of the general term to the 



TERM, ALL, ANSWERED. 273 

people of God : all Christ's people are made alive in 
him, just as all Adam's people are made dead in him. 
But we must dismiss this branch of the subject. 
Other texts there are, of a similar kind and similarly 
used. These are reputed by the friends of general 
atonement the strongest. All the others are to be 
expounded in the same way ; we therefore leave them 
to the discretion of the reader. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE OBJECTION AGAINST STRICT, DEFINITE ATONE- 
MENT, FOUNDED ON THE GENERAL GOSPEL CALL, 
STATED AND REFUTED. 

Against the doctrine of a real, proper vicarious 
satisfaction for sin — a satisfaction rendered to divine 
justice by the death of Christ, for and on behalf of 
his own people, whose sins, and theirs only, he bore in 
his own body on the tree, it has been urged as an ob- 
jection, that this doctrine ties the tongue of the gospel 
minister: he cannot offer salvation to all men: he 
cannot urge all men every where to repentance and 
faith: he cannot invite all men to come, and assure 
them there is yet room: he cannot promise salvation 
to all men as a ground of their encouragement to 
come to Christ: for this would be to promise salva- 
tion to the lost; for whom Christ did not die. It were 
to invite to a feast many for whom no seat had been 
provided, and no feast prepared: for, to offer salva- 
tion to those whose sin is not atoned for, and who 
therefore cannot be saved, is to mock and tantalize ; 
a conduct unworthy of a kind and gracious God ; and 
unfitting for the messengers of mercy. 

On the other hand, say the friends of the indefinite 
atonement scheme, the atonement is for all — Christ 
died for all ; the gospel is therefore offered to all, and 



274 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 

if all come they will be saved ; they who will not come 
will not be saved. Thus, God is honest and sincere in 
his offers of mercy to all men: and the impenitent 
and unbelieving are cut off for their unbelief and 
impenitence. 

Suchj for substance, is this objection. In reply, 
let me remark. 

1. That the advocates of a real and strict atone- 
ment, feel any difficulty — that they are trammelled 
in their presentation of the gospel call, is not true in 
point of fact. I have had occasion many thousand 
times to invite, and entreat, and command men every 
where (i. e. wherever I have preached) to repent and 
believe the gospel. I have heard very many of the 
same belief with myself, urging the gospel call, with 
all possible zeal; pressing men to believe, repent and 
be saved; assuring them in the strongest language, 
that every penitent believer shall most certainly be 
saved : but never did I feel any difficulty, and I am 
confident no intelligent Calvinist ever feels any such 
difficulty. 

Here, then, is a matter of fact answer, to the ob- 
jection before us. It is something worse than in vain, 
to tell a man he cannot do, the very thing he is in the 
constant habit of doing. All Calvinists are in the 
constant practice of commanding all sinners to whom 
they preach, to repent, and assuring them that every 
penitent believer shall be saved; and yet the objector 
says, you cannot do it ! We do^ do it : we always do 
it. What, worse than folly to say, we cannot do it! 

This might be sufficient answer to the objector, if 
the only object was to silence him. But radical error 
lies couched in the objection, and for the truth's sake, 
therefore, we must give a more extended reply. 

2. The entire Armenian or Semi-Pelagian system 
is wrapped up in this objection. It supposes that 
Christ's death has opened a door by which men — all 
men of Adam's race, may be saved if they choose : and 
it supposes the doctrine of ability in man, independent 
of renewing grace, to turn himself and choose the Sa- 
viour : that all men arc alike able to repent and believe, 



M 



GENERAL GOSPEL CALL. 275 

and the only reason they are not all saved is, that some 
choose to be saved, and some do not: that human voli- 
tion^ and not divine grace^ determines the question of 
heaven or hell : that salvation is offered to all, and 
promised conditionally to all : that they who fulfil the 
condition, that is, who convert themselves by free 
will — who do the work — are saved, and the rest perish. 
Thus, salvation is by human worJcs^ and not divine 
grace. 

But now the Bible doctrine is, that every penitent 
believer — every one that is willing, is saved ; but, 
moreover, that this willingness, and this penitence, 
and this faith, are not human works, but divine graces, 
inwrought in the soul by the regenerating Spirit of 
God — -they " were born, not of blood, nor of the will of 
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 
i. 13.) The will itself is renovated by the Holy Spirit — 
the person who was unwilling is made willing, by the 
divine Spirit. This being the truth, in opposition to 
the preceding error, we are prepared to point out 
another fallacy, viz. 

3. That the gospel call is a promise of salvation to 
every individual to whom the preacher has access. 
This I conceive to be an utter mistake. For, 

(1) The gospel call is a commandment : it emanates 
from the supreme Lord of the universe, as such: it 
does not, in this aspect of it, issue from Jesus as 
Saviour^ but as Crovernor. His giving this command 
— his ordering his disobedient subjects to return into 
due subjection, belongs to him as King. In this, he 
is exercising his authority^ and all men are bound to 
obey him : for it is the duty^ and it must be the duty 
of every rational being, in heaven, earth and hell, to 
obey God. From this obligation no amount of sinful- 
ness or of holiness ever can release any creature. 
None can rise above God's authority — none can sink 
below it. Now, in the gospel call, is included this 
command. Into this revolted province of his empire, 
God has sent his Son, invested with full powers, to 
command submission, and to demand the fruits of his 
vineyard. It is the supreme authority of heaven that 



27j8 objections refuted. 

meets us in the command, ^^ repent ye" rebels, and 
believe the gospel. Submit to your King and Lord. 
" Turn from your evil ways." " Let the wicked for- 
sake his way — and the unrighteous man his thoughts." 
''Turn ye — turn ye." ''Seek the Lord — Call ye 
upon him." " Depart ye, depart ye— go ye out from 
the midst of her and touch not the unclean thing." 
The gospel call is mandatory; it comes with all the 
weight of divine authority : if any man treat it with 
contempt, it is at the peril of his immortal soul. If 
it were not so, that is, if the gospel call were not a 
command, based on authority — the authority of the 
universal Governor, manifestly, there could be no sin 
in disobeying it. Sin is the transgression of the law : 
but impenitence and unbelief are sins, and therefore 
transgressions of the law, and therefore the command 
to return in all things into due obedience to God — the 
commands to repent and to believe, are commands of 
the law — they emanate from God as universal Gov- 
ernor. And thus, the whole business of preaching the 
moral law, and enforcing its duties upon the hearts 
and consciences of men, belongs to the ministerial 
oflSce — it belonged to Christ's office, and he has en- 
trusted it to his servants. They, therefore, are direct- 
ly in the line of their duty, when they press all the 
moral obligations of the law upon the consciences of 
men : consequently, the objections of some to such 
preaching, are not founded on scripture, nor in reason. 
For the law and the gospel are not two different moral 
systems, having, in some degree, antagonistic interests: 
they are one in their aim and end: both are designed 
to promote the glory of God and the happiness of 
man. The latter is a remedial scheme, as we have 
seen, for the incidental evils growing out of the viola- 
tion of the former. When God, in the person of the 
Son, commands all men every where to repent, that 
is, to return to due obedience to himself, he utters no 
new command : it is not a new law he promulgates, 
but simply what belongs to the unchanging and 
eternal nature of moral rule. So, when he enjoins 
men to believe in God; it is no new law. AH moral 



GENERAL GOSPEL CALL. 277 

beings are bound always to believe all that God 
tells them. All that is peculiar to the gospel, in 
saving faith, as we shall see, is merely a modification 
ii) the forms of man's belief: it brings in no new 
principle. Persuaded I am, therefore, that all which 
is mandatory in the gospel call, is from Christ as 
Governor, to whom all power is committed in heaven 
and in earth. 

(2) Therefore, the call thus far is universal. All 
men every where are commanded to trust in God, and 
to turn from sin to Him and holiness. The command, 
enforcing the obligation, is nothing more or less than 
simply a going forth of the law's eternal claim upon 
its moral subjects. How it should be otherwise, to 
my mind, is an impossible conception. A perfect 
moral Governor, that should cease to require perfect 
obedience, is a solecism — a perfect moral Governor, 
who should never call upon a revolted subject to return 
to due allegiance, but abandon the helm, the moment 
any should transgress, is a contradiction. 

(3) But again- — in the gospel call there is a pro- 
mise; "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," — this is a 
command — "and thou shalt be saved," this is a pro- 
mise. "Ask," this is mandatory, "and ye shall re- 
ceive," this is promissory. The former is the going 
forth of authority, the latter is the going forth of 
love. All gospel promises originate in the eternal, 
free and sovereign love of God, and flow in upon us 
through the rent vail of Messiah's flesh. These, in a 
strict sense, indeed, are the gospel. The proffer of 
life through the blood of Calvary, is good news: yet 
is it manifest, that, independent of the command 
going before, this characteristic of the gospel, strictly 
so called, could not exist: that is, the promise of sal- 
vation can be glad tidings only to him who feels him- 
self lost. Suppose deliverance from death and hell 
w^ere offered, through the blood of Christ, to the angels 
of glory; would they understand it? Would they 
account it glad tidings ? Clearly, then, the very na- 
ture of the gospel invitations and promises, is most 
materially affected by the nature of the previous com- 

24 



278 OBJECTIONS REFUTED* 

mand, and the person to wliom it is addressed : and, 
practically, in proportion as the mandatory call has 
seized upon the sin disabled soul, will be the measure 
of its gladness when the promissory call pervades the 
heart. The gospel, therefore, meaning the promises, 
apart from the command, is not good news. Both 
must go together. The sword of the Spirit must open 
a way for the balm of Gilead : he only can be healed 
who has been wounded : the promises are practically 
good news only to those who have felt the force of the 
command, ^'Repent ye and believe the gospel," and of 
their own utter unworthiness, and inability to return 
to a holy state. 

4. This prepares the way for a very important 
inquiry : Is the promise in the gospel call, conditional 
or unconditional ? Has a minister authority to say to 
every sinner he meets — here is salvation for you — 
you shall be saved : every one of you shall live for 
ever: Christ Jesus has taken away all your sins: 
there is nothing against you in the book of God's 
account ? Or has the ambassador of Christ authority 
only, to command all men to whom he comes, to be- 
lieve, and repent, and bring forth fruits meet for 
repentance, and evidence of its genuineness ; and 
then^ to promise every penitent believer eternal life ? 
Does his commission authorize him to do more than 
assure the truly converted man of salvation ? 

In view of these inquiries, I think the plain reader 
of the Bible will not long hesitate. The promises 
are surely addressed to the faithful, penitent, prac- 
tical Christian. Whilst the disobedient, impenitent 
and unbelieving man, has no right to their comforts. 
Whether, then, you choose to call it a condition or 
not, the promises, no man has a right to address to 
any but believers in Christ. The command of the 
gospel call is addressed to all men without exception, 
to w^hose ears it comes: the promise is limited to the 
children of faith. ^' He that belie veth ^liall he saved,'' 
There is not a promise of life and salvation in all the 
Bible, that goes without and beyond this limit. It is, 
consequently, the duty of every gospel minister, 



GENERAL GOSPEL CALL. 279 

clearly to define the character of the believer and the 
penitent, and to address his promises, or rather his 
Master's promises, to those, and to those only, who 
sustain the character of true believers: and so far 
from extending the promise beyond this, it is made 
his official duty to denounce the curse of God on all 
besides. "He that believeth not shall be damned." 
'^Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we per- 
suade men." We paint the character of the impeni- 
tent and unbelieving, and tell you all, who sustain 
this character, that, continuing thus, ye shall be lost : 
there can be no substantial spiritual joy for you here : 
and all beyond is dreary and doleful despair. " He 
that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the 
wrath of God abideth on him." 

When, therefore, we are asked, and it is often done 
with an air of triumph, Is not the gospel call univer- 
sal — and does not this prove the atonement universal ? 
our response is — that the gospel call consists of a com- 
mand and a promise. The command, which enforces 
universal duty, is of course universal, and all who 
hear, are bound by it. The promise of life and hea- 
ven, is particular ; it is addressed only to the be- 
liever — and no man, without the most arrogant pre- 
sumption, can say to any individual sinner, "this sal- 
vation is yours," until he has indubitable evidence that 
such sinner is truly penitent and faithful. The com- 
mand is absolute — the promise is conditional: the 
former is universal, the latter particular. 

5. But again, every one who complies with the con- 
dition, may, and ought to, and doth, lay hold on the 
promise. And it cannot be doubted, but that God's 
faithfulness is bound to fulfil the promise, by bestow- 
ing, giving, conferring the thing promised, viz : sal- 
vation. It would be a violation of truth, to withhold 
salvation from a penitent and obedient believer : he 
who sustains this character, has a claim upon the 
divine faithfulness. The conditions of the promise 
are complied with, and the promisor has no option; 
he is bound by his own veracity, to give the thing 
promised. 



280 OBJECTIONS REFUTED. 

Now, here is the precise point at which Armenian- 
ism interposes. ^'Exactly so/' says its advocate: 
'' God presents a conditional promise ; man complies 
with the condition and then claims the reward of life." 
This is true or false, just as you take it. If by it is 
meant, that the sinner by his own strength and free 
will changed his own heart, produced in himself true 
faith, saving repentance, and holy obedience — if this 
is mans work^ then the doctrine is false and soul- 
destructive. If by it is meant, that the same God, 
who, as Governor, commands us to believe and obey, 
and who promises salvation — by his Spirit, renews 
the soul to spiritual life ; produces true faith, saving 
repentance and holy obedience ; then the doctrine is 
true, for it stains the pride of human glory, and places 
the crown of our salvation upon our Redeemer's 
brow. 

6. Here we meet another turn to the objection. 
"But the gospel," says the objector, "is represented 
as a feast ; the King's servants are sent to invite all 
to come: now, if there is no provision made for them, 
what, if more should come than could find place at 
his table ?" I answer, that here again is the false 
hypothesis, that men may, can, and will come, without 
any influence of the King's power in changing their 
hearts. Whereas, the truth is, and the King has told 
us so, that none of the whole, who are invited and 
commanded to come, are ever found willing, until the 
Holy Spirit has renewed and compelled them to come 
in. It is their duty to believe and obey ; but none 
have any disposition and ability to do this duty, until 
God's Spirit renews the soul. Unless, therefore, it 
should happen, that God should regenerate souls, 
whom he does not mean to save — blasphemous 
thought ! — the absurd hypothesis of a sinner believing 
and repenting, and yet being rejected of God, can 
never occur. 

What if more should come than Christ has provi- 
ded room for ! Presumptuous folly ! What if the 
Ethiopian should change his skin and the leopard his 
spots ! What if the devil should become indeed an 



GENERAL GOSPEL CALL. 281 

angel of glory ! When will men learn, that to reason 
from impossible suppositions can never promote the 
cause of truth ? 

7. But it has been common, I am aware, to place 
the general gospel call on other grounds. Most of the 
friends of a true and strict atonement, answer the 
above objection by retreating to the doctrine of the 
infinite merit of Christ's death and obedience. Few 
men have used stronger language to this amount, than 
Dr. Owen. 

" To the honour then of Jesus Christ, our Media- 
tor, God and man, our all sufficient Redeemer, we 
affirm, that such and so great was the dignity and 
worth of his death and blood shedding, of so precious 
a value, of such an infinite fulness and sufficiency was 
this oblation of himself, that it was every way able 
and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, reconcile 
and save, all the sinners in the world, and to satisfy 
the justice of God, for all the sins of all mankind, 
and to bring them every one to everlasting glory. 
Now, this fulness and sufficiency of the merit of the 
death of Christ is a foundation unto two things, viz : 

1. The general publishing of the gospel unto all 
nations, with the right that it hath to be preached to 
every creature. Math. xx. 6. Mark xvi. 15. Because 
the way of salvation which it declares, is wide enough 
for all to walk in; there is enough in the remedy it 
brings to light, to heal all their diseases, to deliver 
them from all their evils ; if there were a thousand 
worlds, the gospel of Christ might, upon this ground, 
be preached to them all; there being enough in it for 
the salvation of them all, if so be, they will desire vir- 
tue from him by touching him in faith, the only way 
to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation. 

2. That the preachers of the gospel in their par- 
ticular congregations, being utterly unacquainted with 
the purpose and secret counsel of God, being also for- 
bidden to pry or search into it, Deut. xxix. 29, may 
from hence, justifiably call upon every man to be- 
lieve, with assurance of salvation unto every one in 

24* 



282 OBJECTIONS REFUTED, 

particular upon Ms so doing.'' — Owen's Death of 
Death, 204. 

I have italicised the last words, to show that Dr. 
Owen's universal call, is really particular, as I have 
already explained. The command is general, but the 
promise and assurance of salvation, is particularly 
limited to those who believe. On the extract I far- 
ther remark, that however it be the common opinion, 
and however the merits of Christ be correctly stated 
as infinite, yet I do not believe this to be at all the 
foundation of the command in the general gospel call. 
The true and proper basis of it is la^id in the mi- 
thority of God, commanding in the remedial law, 
what he commanded in the original institute, all men 
to trust in him and obey his will. Such command is 
in the gospel call, '' Come unto me all ye that labour 
and are heavy laden." The Son of the mighty King, 
himself both Lord and King, goes forth to his revolt- 
ed subjects, and proclaims an amnesty— -commands 
all the rebels to lay down their arms : He promises 
to all and every one wlio shall thus express their sub- 
mission, pardon and restoration to favour: but the 
heart of a desperate rebel is in every one of them, 
and not one among the millions of revolters will ac- 
cept the proffered pardon ; unless, besides all this, a 
new temper and disposition shall first have been given 
to him. Here come in the gospel provisions : the 
Spirit of the great King changes the hearts of an im- 
mense number, who, accordingly, accept the proffered 
pardon and secure their lives. The rest, left to the 
freedom of their own mZ^, pass on and perish: the just 
consequences of their own sin overtake them, and 
they die in their own iniquity. Their death is not 
caused, nor is it even occasioned, by the change of 
temper and consequent pardon of the others ; but 
simply and solely by their sinful perseverance in re- 
bellion. They are cut off as rebels, not only for the 
last, but for all the previous acts of their resistance to 
their King's government. The formal ground of their 
condemnation, is not because other men are saved, nor 



THE saviour's INTERCESSION. 283 

because of the all-sufficiency of Christ's atonement, 
but only because they sinned. The damnation of 
men is not secured by the blood of Christ. 

True, the rejection of the King's pardon is an ad- 
ditional and aggravating act of their rebellion ; and 
in order to this, the gospel call must have been sound- 
ed in their ears ; but it is not for this purpose it is so 
sounded. It is, that those whose ears are opened, 
may hear and return. The others, having an oppor- 
tunity to commit this last act in rejecting the pardon, 
is an incidental circumstance, but not the reason, why 
the amnesty is proclaimed, and the command to cease 
rebellion is sounded in their ears. The purpose of 
the proclamation is, to reach them whom the Lord 
their God shall call: but in accomplishing this, an 
opportunity is necessarily offered to the other revolt- 
ers to revolt more and more. 

But the nature of unbelief, as the crowning sin, 
will come in better after we shall have examined the 
doctrine of faith. 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE saviour's INTERCESSION. 

That a man be indifferent to the effects of his own 
actions — the success of his own enterprise, is scarcely 
conceivable. All the laws, which ordinarily prompt 
to action, must first be reversed; and to account for 
any action at all, would be very difficult. Our sim- 
plest conception of a moral act involves the idea of 
moral motive operating upon and determining choice ; 
and to suppose a state of indifference as to results, is 
to suppose, that the results themselves could operate 
as a cause of action, until the very moment of their 
achievement, and then cease to have any power to in- 



284 THE SAVIOUll'S INTERCESSION. 

fiuence the mind. It may well, therefore, be doubted, 
whether a state of indifference to the success of his 
own labours, is possible with any rational mind : and 
should such a state actually occur, it might well be 
inquired, whether that mind had not lost its balance 
and ceased to be a moral agent. 

Now, this characteristic of our rational nature, this 
essential attribute of its moral character, was not 
wanting in the Saviour of men. Petulance of anxiety 
for results, he never did display; but the steadfast 
fixedness of his eye and heart upon the hour of his 
sorrows and the world's triumph, showed that the 
glorious results, being the recompense of his own re- 
ward, were never matters of indifference to him. To 
suppose, that after he had endured the pains and pri- 
vations of this sorrowful life, the groans and agony of 
Gethsemane, and of Calvary, he henceforth ceased to 
regard the permanent issues of the whole, were to 
suppose in him strange contradictions indeed. Such, 
no reader of the Bible can believe to exist. On the 
contrary, every careful reader must believe that Jesus 
always looked, and still looks with intense interest 
upon the effects of his own obedience and death, and 
that he now exercises his divine government over the 
universe, with a direct, and special and principal 
regard to these glorious results. Such temper he 
displayed immediately after his resurrection, and be- 
fore his ascension. His promises relative to the mis- 
sion of the Holy Ghost, and their fulfilment at the 
Pentecostal feast, are a beautiful illustration of his 
deep concern for consequences. The purpose of this 
chapter, is to illustrate the outgoings of this principle 
in the doctrine of the Saviour's intercession. 



SECTION I. 

THE MEANING OF THE TERM AND THING. 

Intercession is coming between, and implies three 
persons or parties. The middle person is the Inter- 
cessor. Hence, Jesus is called Mediator^ that iS; the 



THE saviour's INTERCESSION. 285 

middle person ; one who throws himself between God 
and man. Man had offended against his Maker's law, 
and was justly obnoxious to the full weight of its sen- 
tence. To the infliction of death the law prompts; 
the sword of justice, uplifted in the hand of God, is 
about to smite the offending rebel down to perdition ; 
Christ steps in between ; he mediates in arresting or 
staying the stroke — rather in changing its direction, 
and turning the sword's burning point in upon his 
own soul. The Shepherd is smitten, that the sheep 
may escape. This doctrine we have canvassed at 
some length. But now, having mediated so far as 
regards the claims of law upon his people, and so 
mediated as to turn the avenging stroke of justice 
from his people upon himself: and having done every 
thing else which the law's claim upon his people con- 
tained, he feels his work for them yet far from being 
completed. They — many of them, are yet in the gall 
of bitterness and bond of iniquity; multitudes of 
those whom he must bring to glory are yet unborn. 
Therefore, an all-pervading feeling on their behalf, 
occupies the bosom of Him who sitteth upon the 
throne. He steps in between the Father and his 
offending children, and entreats for them the blessings 
they need. Intercession is a part of mediation, and 
includes all the prayers which Christ our great High 
Priest offers up for us — " he ever liveth to make in- 
tercession for us," (Heb. vii. 25 :) to manage our busi- 
ness for us before God : such is the force of the Greek. 
So in Acts XXV. 24, "And Festus said, King Agrippa, 
ye see this man about whom all the multitude of the 
Jews have dealt with me;'' it is the same word — have 
interceded. Rom. viii. 27 — " because he maketh in- 
tercession for the saints" — he manageth the saint's 
business — he dealeth for the saints. And in verse 34, 
Who also dealeth for — manageth with God the affairs 
of the Saints. It does not, properly^ mean only to 
pray for; for the Jews dealt with Festus, not by ask- 
ing benefits of him for Paul ; but they endeavoured 
to procure a sentence against the Apostle, and thus to 
compass his death. Their dealing^ therefore, was the 



286 THE saviour's intercession. 

presentation of charges, and proof, such as they had. 
Rom. xi. 2. ^'Elias maketh intercession to God against 
Israel." And in doing this, he states their crimes, 
(verse 3,) " Lord, they have killed thy prophets and 
digged down thine altars." 

One other case occurs in the New Testament, 
1 Tim. ii. 1, ^'I will, that first of all prayers, suppli- 
cations and intercessions be made." Here it is clearly 
manifest, that intei^cessions are somewhat different 
from prayers and im2:)ortunate entreaties. This third 
expression, intercessions, is not mere sound without 
precise meaning; it signifies. The presentation of a 
case before a judge and the claiming of a decision 
according to law. Such was the action of the Jews 
before Festus. They importunately urged the judge 
to pass sentence on Paul's case, according to their 
representations of it. Such was the action of Elias ; 
he presented the sins of Israel before God, and urged 
the expression of his vengeance upon them. Such, I 
contend, is the meaning in all the other cases. When 
the Spirit, (Rom. viii. 26,) maketh intercession for us 
with unutterable groanings — he presents our case — the 
case of Christ's people, and earnestly demands a deci- 
sion in their favour according to law — he manages their 
cause for them. When Christ (ver. 34,) ''maketh 
intercession," it is the same: he presents the cause of 
his people : he shows before the presence of the 
Father's tribunal, where he is ''our advocate," that 
all his people have in himself fulfilled all law in all 
respects, viz : He, for them, has paid the penalty and 
fulfilled the precepts. Consequently, he urges a 
decision in their case, and that a favourable decision ; 
he claims it on the ground of his own merits — merits 
which he evinces, are for them, and therefore they 
ought to be pardoned, justified, and saved. Jesus our 
advocate manages our whole cause for us. Thus the 
Greek word, translated intercession, does not neces- 
sarily mean praying for; it often means praying 
against. It may include either, for it simply describes 
all the actions and doings of one who urges and 
presses a suit in court, that it may be decided: and 



CHRIST'S PLEA. 287 

tliat, irrespective of that decision, whether it be for or 
against. Applied to Christ, it of course includes 
•whatever he does towards procuring, at the bar of 
God, a decision in favour of his people. He is their 
advocate with the Father, and pleads their cause. 

Now this suggests the idea of accusation, and an 
opposing pleader. So the Bible has it; Satan is 
called "the accuser of the brethren." Rev. xxii. 10. 
And inasmuch, as there is a powerful "adversary," 
there ought to be a powerful advocate. In Matthew 
V. 25, we are advised, "agree with thine adversary 
quickly, whilst thou art in the way with him, lest at 
any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge,. &c;" 
which shows that the adversary is the person prose- 
cuting a claim against another. Hence Peter, (1 v. 8,) 
admonishes us, "be sober, be vigilant; because your 
adversary^ the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about." 
And the widow, (Luke xviii. 3.) cried, "Avenge me of 
mine adversary." Give judgment in my case. The 
phraseology of the Bible all leads us to the idea of an 
accuser^ who is a pleader against; a tribunal at which 
he wishes to procure a sentence against a person ; an 
advocate — one who pleads for the person accused, and 
shows cause why a favourable sentence should be pro- 
nounced, and thence urges the court for such a sen- 
tence. The intercession of Christ, then, consists of 
his plea and his claim founded on his plea. 

SECTION 11. 

Christ's plea on behalf of the people. 

This plea consists of two parts; that which goes 
to repel the accusation; and that which goes to esta- 
blish the very opposite of it. As to the former, its 
nature must in all cases be determined by the nature 
of the accusation; for it consists in resistance to it. 
Now, the accusation brought by the adversary, is, that 
these men have sinned, and, according to the law, 
ouojht to be delivered over to himself, to become a 
part of his accursed and wicked crew. Satan desires 



288 CHRIST'S PLEA. 

to have them as his own subjects, and the ground of 
his claim is, that they have identified their interests 
with his, and of right and law, are doomed to be with 
him. 

Against this, " our advocate with the Father" puts 
in the counter plea, that he himself has suffered in the 
room of his people — has met the entire penal claims 
of law against them; so that their deliverance into 
the hands of the tormentor, would be unrighteous; 
for it would be a second infliction of penal evil for 
the same sins. Satan claims them as sold slaves 
under sentence of law. Christ claims them as having 
redeemed them from the curse of the law, and points 
to his pierced feet, and hands and side — to his tears, 
and groans, and bloody sweat. Hence, obviously, he 
admits, that in one view the accusation was just, 
and their deliverance into the tormentor's hands 
would have been right ; but now the torment — the 
punishment due, by course of law and right, has been 
inflicted upon himself as their surety, and therefore, 
he claims the release of his people from all the agonies 
of the curse. 

This part of Christ's advocacy is beautifully repre- 
sented in the law of Moses. The High Priest person- 
ates Christ, in the progress of his ministrations ; this 
High Priest oS*ers up the sacrifice on the altar of 
burnt ofi*erings, without the tcibernacle ; this is Christ 
sufl*ering without the gate. The Priest then takes a 
part of the blood and passes through the blue vail 
into the most holy place, and sprinkles it on the 
mercy seat; this is Christ passing through the blue 
vault of heaven into the presence chamber of the 
great King, and carrying with him the evidence of 
his sufl*erings and death. The Priest thus secures 
forgiveness of sins for the people ; Christ thus repels 
the accusation of the adversary, and evinces the right 
in himself, to his people's deliverance — that is, he 
obtains the remission of their sins. (Heb. ix.) "Nei- 
ther by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having 
obtained eternal redemption for us" — " but into hea- 



CHRIST'S PLEA. 289 

veil itself, now to appear in the presence of God for 
us." " Wherefore he is able also to save them to the 
uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever 
liveth to manage their cause with God — to make in- 
tercession for them." A very material, an all impor- 
tant part of Christ's intercession, is his presenting the 
evidence of his death, that is, his satisfaction rendered 
to divine justice for his people's sin. Without this, 
his appearance before God for us were all in vain. 
And this vanity is also illustrated by Moses. If even 
the high priest, without having first offered the proper 
sacrifice, enter the most holy place, within the vail, 
he shall die. (Lev. xvi. 2.) The sacrifice must first 
be ofi*ered, before he dare enter into the most holy 
place, and before he can take fire, and the incense, 
which represents prayer, and offer them before the 
mercy-seat. Here, the incense sets forth Christ's 
supplication for his people's pardon: and it becomes 
available, only by fire from the altar of burnt offer- 
ings. That is, the entire offering of Christ's prayer 
for his people, depends upon his previous sacrifice. 
Unless he carries with him the memorial of his own 
blood, this incense of his prayer can have no odour : 
his cause is lost. 

2. The second part of Christ's plea consists in pre- 
senting the evidence of his having fulfilled all right- 
eousness for his people. Not content with their rescue 
from the positive suffering of the curse, he proceeds 
to assert a claim for them to positive blessedness. 
He shows, that as the second Adam, he has estab- 
lished for his people, by his own perfect obedience, 
the ground on which life was promised to the first 
Adam and all his posterity. And consequently, all 
that life and happiness which was promised in the 
covenant to the children of the one, must of right 
pass over and belong to the children of the other. 

Now, this plea, in which he evinces the perfection 
of his atonement, and of his obedience, our Advocate 
lays down as the basis of his claim. 

25 



290 CHRIST'S CLAIM 

SECTION III. 

Christ's claim on behalf of his people. 

This of course consists of two parts, corresponding 
to the basis of it. 

1. He claims for them exemption from the penal 
evils of the curse; as we have already seen. And 
this includes their deliverance from guilt and woe; 
"which deliverance is, of course, not an abstraction, 
not a mere name, but a blessed and glorious reality. 
Hence, the Holy Spirit is sent to rescue them from 
the spiritual death which sin had brought into their 
souls, and to inform them of the fact, that their sins 
are forgiven, that the plea of their advocate is sus- 
tained in the court of heaven ; and they are now the 
reconciled children of God. 

Now, you will observe, this mission of the Spirit, 
and his entire work of regeneration, and bearing wit- 
ness in the souls of Christ's people, that they are his, 
is obtained by our Advocate, as matter of right to 
him: He claims it: and ''him the Father heareth 
always ;'' consequently the Holy Spirit is sent. This 
accords to what he states, (John xvi. 7:) "It is expe- 
dient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away, 
the Comforter will come not unto you ; but if I depart, 
I will send him unto you." (ch. xv. 26:) ''But when 
the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you 
from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which pro- 
ceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." 

Analogous to these sacred truths are the affairs of 
men. All our rules of right are from God. When- 
ever a faithful advocate at a human tribunal, evinces 
the justice of the cause he has espoused, and secures 
a sentence in favour of his client, he claims — and jus- 
tice gladly responds to his claim — he claims the release 
of the prisoner. It is justice that throws open the 
prison door, and proclaims liberty to the captive. It 
is justice that wings the messenger of mercy from the 
throne of God — justice to the Redeemer is mercy to 
his redeemed ones. 



FOR HIS PEOPLE. 291 

2. The other point, in the claim of our Advocate, 
regards the precept of the law. According to the 
essential nature of moral government, the law holds 
out some good as the motive to its obedience ; when 
the mind yields to the force of motive and obeys, the 
good thing proffered must, of right, be given. This 
is the essence of the covenant of works. God com- 
manded obedience, and promised life. In the original 
form, this covenant was broken by man, and thus 
came death. In great condescension, God set on foot 
a remedial covenant, in the hands of an infallible 
surety — the second Adam. Here is the point in 
which mercy is exercised. By no principle of law 
was God bound to do this: it is wholly gratuitous 
and gracious. But now, this second Adam performs 
the obedience required ; he establishes the principle 
of the original institute, and claims for his own people 
the promised life. The claim^ it will be seen, is based 
upon the fact of his having fulfilled the law by an 
entire, total, and complete obedience. To such obe- 
dience God at first promised life to man ; and now 
Christ, as the Advocate of his redeemed people, 
presses his j'-ight to their blessedness for ever. In his 
plea, he gives evidence of this fact, and having proved 
a full compliance with the conditions of the promise, 
he looks to the Father for a similar compliance in the 
bestowment of life. ^'Father, I will that those also, 
whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; 
that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given 
me." John xvii. 24. 

With these views before us, let us remark in con- 
clusion : 

1. The loose and undefined notion, entertained (it 
is to be feared) by not a few, that Christ's interces- 
sion is simply, his bald and naked request or prayer 
for men, is erroneous, and consecjuently mischievous. 
It is erroneous, because it omits the main matter of 
intercession, viz: the pZe« on which the prayer is 
founded: the argument of the cause. It leaves out 
of view, partially, if not totally, the moral and legal 
relations of the parties. It is mischievous for the 



292 CHRIST'S CLAIM 

same reason ; and hence leads to low thoughts of 
Christ and his work. If he only prays — asks benefits 
for his people ; that can be done by a fellow sinner, 
or a saint on earth and in heaven. Sincere, ardent, 
and importunate prayer is offered up by men for their 
fellow men. If this is all Christ does, then men may 
as well approach God through the intercession of St. 
Peter, or the blessed Virgin. Hence all the idolatry 
of the popish system. 

On the contrary, if the chief item in intercession be 
and is Christ's plea, in which he shows his fulfilment 
of all claims of law upon his people, then all men must 
see and feel a vast difference between the intercession 
of Christ and that of mere men. We may intercede 
for our friends, but we have no merit of our own to 
plead. We may refer to Christ's all-sufficiency, and 
through him have acceptable approach to God. 

2. We see why our persons must be accepted with 
God, before our prayers and other services can be. 
There is no way of acceptable approach to Him, but 
through Christ, who is the way, and the truth, and 
the life. Unless, therefore, we come unto God by 
him, he is not able to save us to the uttermost or to 
the least degree. All Christ's power to save depends 
upon his atonement and obedience. 

3. We learn why it is that Christ never prayed for 
all men indefinitely. The fact is undeniable ; unless, 
indeed, you choose to contradict his own express words: 
" I have manifested thy name unto the men which 

thou gavest me out of the world — - I pray for 

them : I pray not for the world, but for them which 
thou hast given me — Neither pray I for these alone, 
but for them also which shall believe on me through 
their word." John xvii. 6, 9, 20. The fact of Christ's 
prayer being limited to, and for, those whom the 
Father gave hitn, and to whom he grants faith to be- 
lieve, being plainly undeniable, we see the reason of 
it. His prayer is founded on his plea of right, and 
can only extend as far as his plea. The Father gave 
him a portion ^' out of the world;" the rest of the 
world, or race of men, he left to their own ways. The 



FOR HIS PEOPLE. 293 

Son "givcth his life for these sheep:" and for these 
only can he put in a claim of right, and demand their 
deliverance from death, hell and sin ; to them he 
gives eternal life, " and this is life eternal, that they 
might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ 
whom thou hast sent." "For I have given unto 
them the words which thou gavest me." 

If, on the contrary, Christ should pray for those 
whom the Father never gave to him : whom he never 
redeemed; to whom he shall say, "depart from me, 
ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil 
and his angels," then it could not be said, that he put 
in a plea and a claim of right for them : it coul-d not 
be said, "him the Father heareth always." But it 
could be said — Jesus has prayed in vain : he has ad- 
vocated the cause of devils and spirits damned and 
lost for ever! "Will any man affirm it? Dare any 
say of the "Advocate with the Father," that he un- 
dertook a bad cause and failed in it ? If this is a 
blasphemy too gross, let us return from it to the plain 
Bible doctrine, that Christ puts in a plea for his 
people, which the Father admits, and a claim which 
he grants. 

4. We learn why our prayers for ourselves and for 
others, are often not heard : they are inconsistent with 
the will of God and not based upon the atonement, 
and do not of course go up perfumed with the incense 
of Christ's intercession. Every prayer offered in 
faith, that is, offered to God in the exercise of a real 
and true confidence in the all-sufficiency of Christ, is 
and shall be answered, in substance, if not in the form 
we may have expected. "Verily, verily, I say unto 
you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, 
he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing 
in my name: ask and ye shall receive, that your joy 
may be full." John xvi. 23, 24. "In my name," 
here, cannot surely mean, a simple sounding of the 
word Jesus, or Christ: but it is the heart's confidence 
in the fulness of his atoning sacrifice, and his justify- 
ing righteousness. Now, this confidence, trust, faith, 
is a grace of the Spirit, and can exist only in the 
25* 



294 SAVING, OR JUSTIFYING FAITH. 

soul that Is regenerated and united in fact, as well as 
law, with Jesus Christ. "Likewise the Spirit also 
helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we 
should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself 
maketh intercession for us with groanings which can- 
not be uttered/' 

5. It will be repetition, but I call it up for distinct 
remembrance — Christ's work, viz: his obedience and 
death are the basis of his intercession. 

6. The sanctification of the soul, its repentance^ 
new obedience, faith, regeneration ; all are conse- 
quences of the mission of the Holy Spirit to that 
soul ; and this mission is a consequence of Christ's in- 
tercession : and this intercession is based on his work 
of atonement ; therefore the whole work begins at the 
altar. Our High Priest offers up the victim; viz: 
himself ; he takes the blood into the most holy place 
and appears now in heaven for us ; he presents the 
plea of his own obedience and death, and on that 
founds his claim to his people's release from sin, 
death, hell, and the grave ; the Father sends the Spirit ; 
the Spirit restores to life the dead soul, produces 
faith, repentance, love and holy obedience; we ask in 
faith, and our joy is full. 



CHAPTER XX, 



ON SAVING, OR JUSTIFYING FAITH, 

The connexion which the sacred Scriptures affirm 
everywhere, between faith and salvation, very fully 
evinces the importance of the topic upon which wo 
now enter. '' Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and 
thou shalt be saved" — " He that believeth on the Son 
hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth not the 
Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth 



FAITH IN ITS PRINCIPLE. 295 

on liim." Faith and life, unbelief — the absence of 
faith and death. How important then to have cor- 
rect views of its nature and operations ! 



SECTION I. 

FAITH, AS A GENERAL PRINCIPLE. 

1. That all men believe very many things; that it 
is a law of man's nature to repose confidence in the 
testimony of his fellow men, is so perfectly obvious, 
as to require no argument or illustration. 

That there exists in the mind a disposition, a habit, 
an inclination to trust, confide, believe in testimony, 
is equally plain and undeniable. That this dispo- 
sition, habit, inclination, is prior to the respective 
acts of believing, to me at least, appears equally 
plain ; and there is no difficulty thrown around this 
doctrine of a hahit or principle of faith, more than 
around any other liahit or principle of action. That 
is, prior to any and to all acts of believing, there is, 
in the constitution of the mind itself, a something 
which adapts it, which fits it, which inclines and pre- 
disposes it, to put forth such acts of believing. 

Now, this principle of faith is original in the human 
mind: that is, man is by nature inclined to believe 
what is told to him. It is not an acquired habit, but 
comes into the world with him. It is as much a part 
of his nature, as the habit of body by which he is in- 
clined to breathe as soon as he is ushered into life : or 
as the disposition to draw his nourishment from his 
mother's breast, or to reason, or to be excited to joy 
or sorrow. Without this principle of faith, he would 
not be man ; but an entirely difi*erent bein^. He 
could never believe — there could be no such thing as 
faith in the act — no such thing as confidence in testi- 
mony — no knowledge derived from this source — no 
human society. 

It is the more important to be well settled on this 
point, however small a matter and however clear, it 
may seem, because of the important position which 



296 FAITH IN ITS PUINCIPLE. 

the opposite sentiment occupies in certain systems of 
unbelief. By an assumption, as false as it is gratuit- 
ous, infidelity has attempted to remove the founda- 
tions of the apostles and prophets. The false assump- 
tion is, that faith, or the disposition to rest upon 
testimony, is an acquired habit; not an original law 
of man's nature. Believing, say they, is the result of 
experience. We hear a testimony — a certain man 
tells us something; we subsequently ascertain that 
his testimony is true ; we rest upon his declaration, 
with a small measure of confidence. Again he testi- 
fies to something else, and our growing experience of 
his veracity, is the measure of strength in our growing 
habit of belief. 

Now, I aver this to be contrary to universal fact. 
So far from belief being thus the product of expe- 
rience, faith in human testimony is natural^ ^ndi unbe- 
lief is the result of repeated experience. 

Every one must feel within himself the conscious 
evidence of this truth : all I need do, is simply to refer 
him to it. He at once accredits the declarations of 
others ; and finds an effort to be continually necessary 
to guard himself against the evils of too hasty a belief. 
Hence, the ease with which children and inexperienced 
persons — inexperienced in the duplicity and untruth 
practised by men towards one another — are duped and 
often injured, through their unsuspicious confidence. 
Hence, the proverbial credulity of little children. 
There is not a trait of their character more promi- 
nent than this — their unreserved confidence, trust, 
faith in testimony. They at first believe all that is 
told to them. So thoroughly is this the leading cha- 
racteristic of children, that we constantly refer to 
them as illustrations of the same quality in grown 
persons. When a man is disposed to believe all he 
hears, we say of him, he is as simple as a child. 

The Saviour who ''knew what was in man," speaks 
of this same laAV, when he says, ''except ye be con- 
verted and become as little children," that is credulous 
of all their father tells them ; believe every thing ; 
"ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Faith 



FAITH IN GENERAL. 297 

is the door of entrance into it; he that believeth is 
saved; if ye, therefore, become not as little children, 
in this main feature of their character, ye are lost and 
undone. But if ye exercise toward God that simple 
confidence, that firm belief which a child reposes in 
its father, ye are the sons of God. 

Here, then, we rest with confidence. The principle 
of faith in testimony is an original element of the 
human constitution. It is one of the chief avenues to 
knowledge ; indeed it is the main avenue. Almost all 
the knowledge we have, has entered by this door. Let 
a man draw a line between the amount of knowledge 
he possesses, which entered his mind by faith, that is, 
for which he simply trusts in the veracity of others ; 
and that which he has independently upon testimony, 
and how insignificant the one in comparison of the 
other ! What we know by faith, includes the entire 
facts of history ; all knowledge, except that which is 
the direct result of personal observation, which is 
original with the individual. Reject all knowledge 
obtained by faith, and what diminutive pigmies mo- 
dern infidels would then be! Let the knowledge 
breathed into them by the breath of testimony, be let 
ofi", and the balloon of their vanity would soon collapse 
into a very insignificant concern. It is rather a sin- 
gular fact, that the infidel philosophers, who, denying 
this primitive law of mind, should be more especially 
than other men, dependent on the faith of testimony 
for their knowledge and distinction. Many of the 
most popular historians are infidels : and it seems not 
to have occurred to them, that in rejecting or attempt- 
ing to discard faith, because of its important influ- 
ences in religion, they have been labouring to pull 
down the pillars of their own temple of fame. 

2. Pejxeption of trutli secui^es belief. This law of 
the human understanding is arbitrary and absolute. 
It is not optional ; it is not a matter of choice, whe- 
ther we believe or not. When the mind ; that is, the 
man, the person ; when I perceive a thing to be true, 
I have no power to disbelieve it. If it were other- 



298 FAITH IN GENERAL. 

wise, if a man had power to withhold his belief after 
he perceived the truth of the thing, it might be a very 
convenient way of obtaining relief in times of trouble. 
Why should a man tvill the belief of that which gives 
him pain ? If a mere act of volition could regulate 
our belief, disastrous news would have a remedy at 
hand. The fact, however, is far different. A man's 
belief is directly and necessarily as the perceptions of 
his own mind. 

Testimony^ or the affirmation of rational agents, is 
one of the modes by which the mind perceives truth. 
We speak, indeed, in a figure, of believing the testi- 
mony of our own senses. We often attribute speech 
and intelligence to our own eyes and ears, and say 
we believe what they tell us. That is, the senses are 
avenues to knowledge ; and what is conveyed to the 
mind through them, we rest upon as truth. This 
confidence or resting is also involuntary. It is not a 
matter of choice whether we believe or not in the 
reality of cold that freezes us, or fire that burns us. 
The same law holds good as to the testimony of our 
fellow men. Our confidence, trust, reliance upon 
their solemn declaration, is the means of almost all 
the knowledge we possess ; nor is our exercising of 
this trust a voluntary matter. Our minds are so con- 
stituted, that no opposition of feelings and desires 
can secure a state of distrust, when we have clear 
testimony to the truth of any thing. We often wish 
we could disbelieve what we hear, but in vain. We 
perceive the truth, and, according to the clearness of 
our perception, rest or rely upon it. 

3. For I remark again, truth, or the reality of 
things, is that to which the mind looks. And in 
moral agents, veracity^ or that quality of mind which 
prompts to state honestly our own perceptions of 
truth, is the basis of our confidence. Exactly as we 
discover in a witness the requisite knowledge of the 
thing about which he testifies, and the attribute of 
veracity^ so will be the measure of our faith or reli- 
ance upon his testimony. Had we never known an 



FAITH, A DUTY. 299 

instance of prevarication or falsehood, the law of be- 
lief would have remained unbroken, and men would 
always believe every testimony delivered to them. 

4. The intellectual and moral powers of men 
have been so deranged by his sin, that he has, in his 
fallen state, no faith in God; because no clear and 
correct idea of his character, his law and his govern- 
ment; and in this alienated state he ever would re- 
main, but for the renewing of the Holy Ghost. 
" The natural man receiveth not the things of the 
Spirit of God," &c. This utter inability to any thing 
good has been fully discussed. The Bible doctrine 
most plainly is, that all mankind are by naturae in a 
state of unbelief, and consequently of death. The 
essential requisites to a true faith, viz. a spiritual 
understanding ; a holy vision of divine things ; a view 
of God as the sum of all excellence ; he has not, and 
never, without supernatural aid, can have. A relict 
of the original law of belief he still has, as of all the 
other original laws of mind ; and this enables him, in 
some degree, to perceive truth and veracity in his 
fellow men, as to the affairs of this life; but in all 
that relates to the spiritual world, he is in darkness. 

We have also seen, that this want of capacity to 
know the things of the Spirit, and consequently to 
believe the testimony of God, in his law and in his 
gospel, (for the former is as much God's testimony as 
the latter) this incapacity is man's sin, and not his 
apology. This prepares the way for our next posi- 
tion. 



SECTION II. 

FAITH IN GOD, A DUTY. 

This position must be viewed in a two-fold aspect : 
in reference to the two-fold division of the divine tes- 
timony, the law and the gospel. 

1. The law of God is called a testimony, inasmuch 
as it is such an exhibition of his perfections, as is cal- 
culated and intended to reprove all iniquity. In and 



300 FAITH, A DUTY. 

by it, God testifies or bears witness to his own glo- 
rious perfections, and against the corruptions of the 
race. Hence the two tables of stone on which its 
summary compend was written, are called his testi- 
mony. God directs Moses, (Ex. xxv. 21, 16,) ^'And 
thou shalt put the mercy-seat above the ark, and in 
the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give 
thee," — that is, the tables of the law. Ex. xxxi. 18, 
" two tables of testimony, tables of stone ; written 
with the finger of God." Accordingly, the ark, in 
which this sacred deposit was laid up, is called (Ex. 
xli. 3) 'Hhe ark of the testimony" — and the taber- 
nacle, the tabernacle of testimony — and of witness. 

Now, God requires man to accredit this testimony 
of his law : and we have seen that its obligation is 
perpetual : no one can ever escape from it. This re- 
quirement embraces not simply the acknowledgment 
of its truth, but the practical acknowledgment. He 
who believes the declarations of God in his law, sets 
to his seal that God is true : but this belief must bo 
a practical principle. If a man say he believes the 
wages of sin to be death eternal, and yet revels in 
iniquity, the latter, viz : his conduct^ speaks his real 
belief in opposition to the former: he contradicts 
himself, and cannot be believed. But if a man pro- 
fesses in words to believe the testimony — all the tes- 
timonies of God's law, and lives, or endeavours to the 
utmost to live, and to act agreeably to them, his ac- 
tions combine with his words, and show the reality 
of his belief. 

Thus it is evident, how unbelief lay near the root 
of the tree forbidden — the serpent's temptation is the 
insinuation of an untruth — "Ye shall not surely die :" 
and the original sin of our race included belief in the 
lie. 

It is obvious, also, how enforcing the duties of the 
law — the belief and practice of this part of God's tes- 
timony, is connected Avith, and leads on to the duties 
of the gospel and its promises. He who in reality be- 
lieves the truths of the law, will try to practise them : 
he will soon find his awful deficiency : he will soon 



SAVING FAITH, A GRACE. 301 

tremble under apprehension of its terrific denuncia- 
tions : he will soon cry out for pardoning mercy : he 
will soon have an open ear to the invitations of grace, 
and the promises, and he will soon believe to the 
saving of his soul. 

2. Thus we are led to the second grand division of 
the divine testimony. God has in the sacred Scrip- 
tures, revealed his will concerning the salvation of the 
lost. Having enjoined a return to the fullest confi- 
dence, trust and obedience to God, he extends his tes- 
timony in the form of a promise of life and salvation 
to every repenting and returning rebel. Now, as it 
never can cease to be the duty of man to confide in 
his Maker, the refusal to return is sin : as we have 
before seen. Hence, the constant connexion of the 
majidate with the promise^ '' believe^ and thou slialt he 
saved.'' 

It is unnecessary here, to dwell upon the authorita- 
tive character and form of Christ's teaching, and the 
obligations which lie upon all men to whom he sends 
the message, to receive it. This has been suflBciently 
evinced. Every where, men are commanded to re- 
pent and believe the gospel : and every penitent be- 
liever has the promise of salvation. But " how can 
these things be?'' If the views already given of 
man's utter incapacity to make himself a new heart, 
repent and believe in Christ, be correct, what mock- 
ery, to tell a man he shall be saved if he do these 
things, and yet tell him he cannot do them ! This 
lead us to another position. 



SECTION III. 

FAITH — SAVING FAITH, A GRACE. 

It may be necessary here to mark a distinction 
between gifts and graces. Any benefit conferred 
short of salvation, where no claims of right to it 
existed, is a gift. Thus, the power of speaking with 
tongues, whether miraculously or not, the power of 
working miracles &c., all of which fall short of any 
26 



302 SAVING FAITH, A GRACE. 

special saving change upon the persons, are gifts. 
But the shedding abroad of the love of God in the 
heart, is a grace. True spiritual illumination, saving 
repentance, humility, and all the deep seated, perma- 
nent moral virtues of the renewed mind, are graces. 
A grace thus includes the idea of a permanent moral 
benefit resulting to us from the indwelling Spirit of 
God : whilst a gift implies only a temporary benefit. 
This is the commonly received distinction. 

When, therefore, we say saving faith is a grace^ we 
mean, that there is in the soul, produced by the Spirit 
of God, a holy habit — an abiding fixed principle of 
the spiritual man, constantly leading forth the soul to 
confide in God : so that whenever his testimonies in 
the Bible are presented, the mind rests upon them. 
The soul perceiving in God, the testifier, the attribute 
of veracity, throws the weight of its immortal interests 
into the Redeemer's hands. ^' Faith in Jesus Christ 
is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon 
him alone for salvation." The principle is thus to be 
distinguished, as before, from its particular exercise 
in believing. 

To suppose no fixed permanent principle, is to sup- 
pose an act without a power of action, an exercise 
without power called into exercise. Some singular 
consequences would follow, if faith were simply and 
only the act of believing ; then the man could be 
called a believer only whilst exercising faith ; any such 
thing as a fixed character, he could not possess. 
Whereas the Bible speaks of believers in quite a differ- 
ent manner: they have character, stable and perma- 
nent : and are not liable to be carried about by every 
wind of doctrine. 

Another result of denying faith in the principle or 
habit, would be, that there could be no growth in this 
grace. There could be no strong faith, no babes in 
Christ. All the scriptures, therefore, that contain or 
suggest the idea of believers advancing in gracious 
attainment, all prayers for increase of faith, imply the 
permanency of it as a principle. 

The origin of this grace, as already intimated, is to 



OBJECTIONS. 303 

be sought in the renewing of the Holy Ghost. It is 
impossible to believe, where the mind has no evidence. 
This is true equally of the natural, and of the gracious 
principle. Until, therefore, the mind is renovated, 
so as to have a capacity to discern the things of the 
Spirit of God, it is not possible, it can perceive the 
truths of his testimonies. Spiritual illumination is an 
important step towards the resuscitation of the prin- 
ciple of faith. 

In this matter our knowledge is limited. We know 
not how it is, or what it is, the spirit of God does in 
the regeneration of the soul. We are as ignorant 
here, as we are in the matter of giving sight to the 
blind, or in the manner of vision with the eyes of the 
body. How the mind perceives by the natural eye 
we cannot tell. The Spirit does something ; he that 
was blind now sees ; he that was deaf now hears 
God's testimony, perceives the veracity of God, sees 
the truth of the testimonies contained in the law and 
in the gospel: and seeing the truth, that Christ died, 
that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, 
he sets to his seal, that God in his testimony is true. 

SECTION IV. 

DIFFICULTIES AND OBJECTIONS. 

1. It may perhaps be objected, that the act of be- 
lieving is involuntary, and can have no moral charac- 
ter; for it is generally admitted, that an act per- 
formed without design, intention, will, or choice, 
cannot be said to be good or bad, in any moral sense 
of the words. Consequently, believing, if it necessa- 
rily follows the perception of truth, is devoid of moral 
character. 

This consequence, under the hypothesis stated^ may 
be admitted as true, and yet it may be, and, we ap- 
prehend, it must be maintained, that, for his belief, 
every man is held responsible. No doubt, there is a 
sense in which belief is necessary; ex. gr., when the 
mind perceives the meaning of the w^ords, three^ and 
seveuj and ten^ and then is called to consider the pro- 



304 OBJECTIONS. 

position, that three and seven are^ together^ equal to 
ten^ the belief is necessary. And here there is not, 
strictly speaking, any moral character in the act, be- 
cause it is not dependent on any moral antecedent. 
But in every case where there is any question of duty; 
any call for the exercise of the moral faculties as the 
antecedent causes of belief, there it has a moral cha- 
racter; for, as we have long since seen, it is the mo- 
tive that gives such character. Yet even in the former 
case, penal evil may, in a certain sense, follow a wrong 
belief. If the navigator mistake his observation, or 
miss a figure in his mathematical calculation, and thus 
is led to believe in an untrue result, he may pay the 
forfeit of his faith in a falsehood, with the loss of his 
ship and cargo, yea, even his life and the life of his 
crew. Or if he himself escape, he cannot excuse him- 
self to his owners by alleging, that a man is not 
responsible for his belief. To the whole extent, there- 
fore, in which we have had, or might have exercised, 
any voluntary agency in presenting truth to our own 
minds, or withholding it, we are morally accountable 
for our belief or unbelief. If we wilfully shut our eyes 
against the light of truth, and thus are led to believe 
a lie, or believe things to be as they are not, it is sin- 
ful; or if we only, by neglect and careless inadvert- 
ence, fall into error and a false belief, it is impossible 
not to feel blameworthy, when evil consequences com- 
pel us to ascertain the truth and correct the error. 
The circumstance, that wo were honest in our belief, 
does not prevent self-condemnation; though it may 
throw it upon the earlier steps which led to our wrong 
belief. Until, therefore, a man ceases to have power 
to use means for attaining knowledge, he remains ac- 
countable for his belief. He who voluntarily stays 
away from the place where he knows the truth of God 
is taught, will probably be sealed up in the belief of a 
lie, and then be punishable for that belief. This often 
occurs in practice. Absentees from public worship, 
very often hear, and believe incorrect statements of 
the doctrine taught, and find mischief and trouble 
resulting. Many times men are thus absent, simply, 



OBJECTIONS. 305 

because of the peculiar state of their minds. They 
hear truth preached which tends to destroy their false 
peace, or to interfere with their darling lusts; and 
conscience seems to them disposed to force upon their 
minds the belief of them : they feel uneasy and stay 
away; remain ignorant of God's salvation, and pe- 
rish — ''they shall turn away their ears from the 
truth, and shall be turned unto fables." 2 Tim. iv. 4. 

There is a striking analogy, and indeed relation, 
between this view of faith, and the point of its con- 
nexion with responsibility, in the operations of con- 
science. A man does w^hat, according to his delibe- 
rate conviction and best judgment, he at the time 
thinks right ; he persecutes the church of God ; he 
follows therein the dictates of his conscience. Is it 
right for him to do so ? Would he do wrong in acting 
contrary to his conscience? Certainly he would: and 
yet his conduct on the whole is wrong. His immediate 
act in doing a wrong thing, he believing it to be right, 
is a right act, because his motive is right, viz: the 
glory of God : but his previous conduct, in not putting 
his mind in possession of right knowledge, and pre- 
senting right motives, was wrong. The transaction, 
as a whole, is sinful ; but the turpitude lies not in the 
last act, it lies in the causes of this last act. Saul of 
Tarsus neglected and refused, through the force of 
prejudice, and. the povrer of corrupt feelings, to put 
himself in the w^ay of proper influences : he blindfolded 
conscience, and followed the blind guide, until mercy 
removed from his eyes the bandages of sin and cor- 
ruption ; and conscience, enlightened by grace, spoke 
the terror of truth in his soul. 

2. The objector may say; your view of saving faith 
makes the faith of the gospel a duty of the law ; so 
that life eternal, w^hich is connected with faith, is se- 
cured to the sinner by a duty of law\ ''Believe and 
thou shalt be saved." Now, if to believe is a duty, 
and the sinner is active in believing, and salvation is 
inseparably connected with faith, then, how can you 
avoid the conclusion, that salvation is dependent upon 
works, or doing a duty? Is not your faith, or the 



306 OBJECTIONS. 

principle of it, the very same as that which Adam 
exercised in his pristine condition? And if so, are 
you not bringing us back to Adam's covenant? 

Several distinct remarks are requisite here. 

(1.) It is true, faith in its principle is the same 
always ; it is trust, reliance, confidence, resting upon 
the testimony delivered, for the truth of the matter. 
And consequently, its particular character must de- 
pend upon the nature of the testimony and the testi- 
fier. So long as Adam rested on God's testimony, 
''thou shalt not eat of it, lest ye die," he stood safe: 
the moment he transferred his confidence, to the tes- 
timony of Satan, ''thou shalt not surely die," he fell. 
Here, as always, the act is characterized by the mo- 
tives which produced it. The motives to eat were 
evil, and the testifier who presented them to his mind 
was evil, and the result, viz: Adam's belief in Satan, 
is disbelief in Grod, and his correspondent actions were 
all evil. 

(2.) My design is^ in one sense, to bring you back 
to Adam's covenant; for by the terms of it only can 
man ever be saved. Righteousness and life are con- 
nected, and, w^e have seen, to nothing else is life, as 
a reward, promised, but to righteousness; that is, 
obedience to law. But this obedience to law, though 
it must be wrought by man, yet cannot ever be eifect- 
ed by mere sinful man. The second Adam, and he 
only, can fulfil all righteousness, and secure salvation 
to man. His gospel is a remedial law, and intro- 
duces no new principle. No doubt, if a man now have 
the same trust and confidence in God that Adam, 
before his fall, had, he is the friend of God, and God 
will own him as such, and bless him accordingly. 
But then, this neither is nor can ever be the case with 
any sinner, except only by the working of regenera- 
tion, the renewing of the Holy Ghost: by which 
re-creation of the man he is made alive in Christ, and 
is interested, in fact, in all the merits of his obedience, 
and all the efiicacy of his atoning blood. 

(3.) The objection supposes, that saving faith is an 
act of the believer, and an act only : whereas, we have 



OBJECTIONS. 807 

shown, there is a principle or habit, which, existing 
in the mind as a governing law by the grace of God, 
is not the work of man, but of the divine Spirit, and 
the distinct acts of believing, are the evidence of its 
existence. Now, it is not the distinct acts of the 
man, or of the principle within him, but the law or 
habit of faith itself, that unite him to Christ. These 
acts are the fruits, not the tree. They evince his 
engrafting into Christ (contrary to nature,) but they 
are not the tree engrafted, whose nature has been 
changed by the operation. Nor yet is the engrafting 
operation, viz : the Spirit's work, that which entitles 
the believer to life. On the contrary, this very work 
of the Spirit is itself an effect of Christ's merits. 
In Christ Jesus, before the world was, every saved 
sinner was chosen, that he should be thus engrafted 
in due time, and made actually, what he had been 
eternally by covenant, a member of Christ's body. 
'^By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not 
of yourselves, it is the gift of God." 

(4.) Therefore, faith, neither in the principle nor 
in the act, is the meritorious cause of salvation. It 
is merely the state, habitual and occasional, of mind 
and of heart, which must necessarily exist in every 
person who is renewed by the Spirit of God. It is 
an effect of the Spirit's work, and this is a result of 
his mission ; and his mission is a result of Christ's 
merits : which merits are the effectual procuring cause 
of salvation. It is manifestly, therefore, incorrect to 
say that faith merits salvation. • But the salvation is 
secured and made certain, by the merits of Christ: 
and these secure faith, as well in its first principle as 
in its subsequent growth. "Increase our faith," 
(Luke xvii. 5,) said the disciples, plainly intimating 
that its growth, and much more its original germ, 
depends upon divine grace. 

It is usual to speak of faith as the instrumental 
cause of salvation: it is the hand that receives the 
bread of God: but neither the hand nor the mouth is 
the bread itself: they are only instruments. Such is 
the allusion in the Assembly's catechism. "Faith is 



308 THE APPROPRIATION 

a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon 
Christ." It is not the act of receiving, but the gra- 
cious habit, principle, state of mind, which goes forth 
in action, whereby we receive and rest. 

3. It may be objected to the foregoing view of 
faith, that it can scarcely be called even the instru- 
mental cause of salvation; seeing the Holy Ghost 
acts as a regenerating Spirit, prior to the exercise of 
faith. This is evident from the allegation, that the 
faith itself is the work of the Spirit ; and neither the 
habit nor its act can exist, until the soul is regenera- 
ted. Consequently, the sinner is saved before he 
becomes indeed a believer, and therefore it must be 
improper to say that he is saved by faith. 

To this it may be a sufficient response, that no 
order, as to time, can come into our views. We can- 
not, with propriety, speak of regeneration, faith, re- 
pentance, holiness, &c. as having any chronological 
order of existence. Regeneration is a general idea, 
comprehending all the life giving movements of the 
Spirit, in and by which the dead soul is made alive; 
the unbeliever a child of faith; the unholy, a holy 
man. But whilst there is no chronological order, that 
is, there is no period when it can be said, the man is 
regenerated, but he is not yet a believer ; he is a be- 
liever, but not yet penitent; he is penitent, but not 
yet holy ; yet is there in the nature of these graces 
an order of existence; first life, then the attributes or 
qualities of life, faith, love, holiness, and the other 
graces. 

SECTION V. 

OF THE APPROPRIATION OF FAITH. 

By appropriation is meant, the special application 
to himself, by the believer, of the benefits of Christ's 
death and obedience: and it has been made a ques- 
tion whether or not, this special application belongs 
to the nature of saving faith. 

1. For an intelligent and satisfactory answer, let 
us refer to Scripture. And here it must be conceded 



OF FAITH. 809 

by all, that the command to believe, is not special but 
general. Why it is and must be so, we have already 
seen. Faith in God is a duty of the law of nature, 
and can never cease to be binding upon all his moral 
creatures. 

2. But the promise is addressed to the persons 
believing, and is special. Hence, the language of the 
Bible, describing the exercise of faith, consists largely 
of the possessive pronoun. " The Lord is niT/ Rock, 
and mi/ Fortress, and mi/ Deliverer; my God, m?/ 
Strength, in whom Zwill trust; mt/ Buckler, and the 
Horn of m^/ salvation, and my high Tower." Psa. 
xviii. 2. " Thou shalt love the Lord % God.'.' " I 
know," said Job, " that my Redeemer liveth." '^ Hear, 
Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." " God is 
the strength of my heart and 7ny portion forever." 
''He loved 7ne and gave himself for me.'' ''Being 
justified by faith, we have peace with God through 
ou7^ Lord Jesus Christ." Thomas said, "My Lord 
and my God." "He is my God, and I will prepare 
him a habitation, my father's God, and I will exalt 
him." Ex. XV. 2. "He laid down his life for us.'' 
And a thousand other passages might be adduced of a 
similar kind — all showing, that saving faith takes to 
itself Christ and all the benefits of his work. It ap- 
propriates and makes its own, the promises which are 
addressed to believers. 

3. This appropriation is a leading and distinguish- 
ing characteristic of that faith which saves : distin- 
guishing it from that which does- not save. That there 
is a dead faith is obvious, that is, a naked assent to 
the truth. " The devils believe and tremble." They 
perceive as intellectual beings, and know and believe 
that Christ died to save men. AVicked men believe 
the leading facts of the gospel : their minds perceive 
the truth and are constrained to assent to it. But 
the faith of devils and lost men, has no appropriating 
attribute in it. " I know thee," said the demon, "who 
thou art, the holy one of God;" but he did not ap- 
propriate to himself the merits of Christ. His belief 
of the truth was unconnected with any realizing views 



310 THE OBJECT OF FAITH. 

of a saving interest in it; he could not say ^^ thou art 
m^/Rock:" and this, because no change had been 
effected by the Holy Ghost in the moral man. The 
enmity had not been slain ; love had not been shed 
abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit. There was 
no attraction of his spirit toward Christ. 

The blessings of salvation are represented as a balm^ 
and the administrator as a physician. " Is there no 
balm in Gilead, is there no physician there ?" Now, 
the medicine will not heal unless it be applied. Faith 
applies or appropriates the healing balm. The same 
characteristic is taught in the sacrament of the supper. 
The bread and and wine represent Christ : the appli- 
cation of a portion to himself, by the communicant, 
represents the appropriation of faith. As the hand 
and the mouth make this bread and wine my own ac- 
tually, so faith makes Christ and his benefits mine 
actually. They were before, mine virtually, by deed 
of gift from God in Christ ; but they now are mine 
in fact, in actual possession. In all this, it will be 
seen, reference is still had to faith in its act ; the 
working of that holy principle implanted by the re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost. Such acts bespeak their 
cause in the renewed mind, and evince the presence 
of the life giving Spirit. 



SECTION VI. 

THE OBJECT OF SAVING FAITH : OR THE PRECISE THING WHICH IS 

BELIEVED. 

Intimately connected with the question of appro- 
priation, is that of the precise matter appropriated. 
In other words, the exact thing which is to be believ- 
ed for salvation. What say the Scriptures? ^'And 
this is the record — the testimony that God hath given 
to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." 1 John 
V. 11. '' God so loved the world that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should 
not perish but have everlasting life." ''Believe on 
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." The 



THE OBJECT OF FAITH. 311 

precise thing then, -which we are called on to believe, 
is, that there is salvation in Christ for all that receive, 
rest upon, and trust in him. In other words, that 
Christ's atonement has cancelled the claims of law 
against all believing penitents : and that his right- 
eousness is all sufficient for them, as their title to 
eternal life. It is the precise province of saving faith, 
to receive and rest upon Christ in these two parts of 
his work. It recognises, in his blood, the price of re- 
demption for lost men, and in his obedience, the title, 
according to God's covenant with the first Adam, of 
the believer to life eternal : and it applies these to 
itself. '' He that believeth on the Son of God hath 
the testimony in himself." His mind, by God's en- 
lightening Spirit, is enabled to see the truth of the 
gospel promise, and can be '' no longer faithless but 
believing," and exclaims, ''My Lord and my God." 
It is obvious, therefore, that saving faith is not merely 
'' a belief of the truth." This belief exists as strong in 
hell as in heaven or on earth. The convinced sinner, 
that is, the man who is enabled to perceive and be- 
lieve the truth of God's testimony in the law, ''not 
only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gos- 
pel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his 
righteousness, therein held forth." This receiving 
and resting are acts of the living principle of faith. 
The mind or soul, having been enlightened in the 
knowledge of the gospel plan, so as to perceive the 
perfect sativsfaction of Christ's atonement, and the 
fulness of his righteousness, throws itself upon them ; 
rests in them as the only sure foundation. The pre- 
cise thing believed is, manifestly, that testimony of 
God which declares that Christ wrought out this 
righteousness, or obeyed the law; and perfected this 
atonement, or made satisfaction to divine justice, for 
his people. And the moment the mind thus rests, 
trusts, appropriates this Saviour, the benefits of his 
death and obedience begin to be experienced. 



312 ASSURANCE OF FAITH, 



SECTION VII. 

IS ASSURANCE, or THE ESSENCE OF SAVING FAITH ? 

This question has been agitated to a considerable 
extent, and has divided those who agree in almost the 
entire system of divine truth. It is, therefore^ highly 
probable, that an accurate definition and understand- 
ing of the term, would settle the question. Let us 
then see what is the scripture meaning of it : this 
must govern us. In our English Bibles it occurs but 
seven times, viz: 

Deut. xxviii. 66. Moses, depicting the evils of the 
Jews' apostasy, tells them, that " among the nations 
shalt thou find no ease. And thy life shall hang in 
doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night; 
and shalt have none assurance of thy life." The 
condition of the seed of Abraham for eighteen cen- 
turies, is a very clear comment on the meaning of the 
term assurance. Theirs is a condition of doubt, un- 
certainty, anxiety, and consequently of comparatively 
small enjoyment. The opposite is a state of assur- 
ance. The mind rests in safety, and confidence, free 
from perplexing and distracting cares and tormenting 
anxieties. 

Assurance, then, is trust, confidence, leaning upon 
that which is expected to sustain ; Cant. viii. 5. " Who 
is this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning 
upon her Beloved." Its efi*ects are peace and quiet- 
ness; Isaiah, (xxxii. 17,) speaking of the blessedness 
of the full gospel day, when ''the Spirit shall be 
poured upon us from on high" — marks the conse- 
quences of this effusion, in the general distribution of 
justice between man and man: ''And the work of 
righteousness, shall be peace ; and the efi'ect of right- 
eousness, quietness and assurance for ever." Here 
again, assurance is that state of the mind, wherein 
trust and confidence are placed on an unfailing de- 
pendence ; and it is a result of the Spirit's presence. 

In Acts, xvii. 31, the assurance, which God is said 
to have given to all men, of the resurrection and 



HOPE AND SENSE. 313 

judgment. Is the pledge o? fidelity — aifording to all 
men faith — giving them sufficient ground, in the fact 
of Christ's resurrection, to believe the doctrine. 

The other cases in which the word assurance occurs, 
are entirely different from the last, as to the original 
term. It is translated once, assurance; (1 Thess. i. 5,) 
but in connexion with a term which rendered the 
usual translation difficult. ''Our gospel came unto 
you — in much assurance" — whereas the word is in 
the other places rendered full assurance. Col. ii. 2, 
— "full assurance of understanding." Heb. vi. 11. 
*'We desire that every one of you do show the same 
diligence, to the full assurance of hope, unto the 
end;" and x. 22: ''Let us draw near, m full as- 
surance of faith." This full assurance, says Owen, 
is a "sure, stable, firm, certain faith, or persuasion." 
The order ought to be noted. There is a "full as- 
surance of understanding.'" Here the reference is to 
the bright beaming in of truth upon the mind, by the 
teachings of the Holy Ghost. Then there is "a full 
assurance of faith;" as a consequent of the former: 
the mind sees the promises afar off, or near, and is 
persuaded of them and enabled to embrace them. 
Then comes a full assurance of Jioj^ie — that measure of 
confidence which gives joy and peace. Hope is the 
daughter of faith and the parent of joy, so far as joy 
results from distant objects. It implies the previous 
maturity and full strength of faith. Faith takes a 
vigorous hold upon the promise or pledge of veracity; 
hope springs forward upon the thing promised. Faith 
builds her house upon the foundation stone; hope 
takes up her abode in the habitation and blesses the 
whole household. Faith looks back upon Calvary and 
the cross; hope's bright eye is turned forward upon 
Paradise and the crown. 

Assurance, then, is a resting and confiding of the 
mind and heart in Christ as the ground of its hope; 
and is but another name for faith itself. Accordingly, 
as we have a strong and a weak faith ; so we have 
assurance and a full assurance. But it ought to be 
distinctly observed, that true faith in us, and our 
27 



314 ASSURANCE. 

knowledge of its presence, are distinct things. Th^ 
Spirit of God, who, by his mighty power, giveth us, 
in the behalf of Jesus Christ, to believe in him, does 
not instantly give us a knowledge of that operation. 
The assurance of the mind must have a reflex influ- 
ence, in order to our sensible experience of it, and 
knowledge by experience. This suggests the distinc- 
tion, long since made and applied with advantage in 
this discussion. 

/'The assurance of faith is a firm persuasion of 
God's love to us, founded on his promise ; the assu- 
rance of sense is a persuasion that we have already 
tasted of his love:" Heb. xi. 1, 13. IJohn v.9, 10, 20. 
Brown's Catechism, Qu. 36. ''Faith is the substance 
of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." 
" These all died in faith, not having received the pro- 
mises, but having seen them afar ofi", and were per- 
suaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed 
that they were pilgrims and strangers on the earth." 
These present faith in its form of assurance. 

"He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the 
witness in himself. We know that we have passed 
from death unto life, because we love the brethren." 
Here is the assurance of sense: our experience teaches 
us that a change has taken place within us. The 
former is perhaps the same, or nearly the same thing, 
which some express by the direct^ the latter the reflex 
exercise of faith. 

"It would greatly conduce," says a public document 
from the eloquent pen of the late Doctor Mason, (see 
works, iii. 332.) "It would greatly conduce to clear 
views of this subject, were the distinction between the 
assurance oi faith and assurance of sense^ rightly un- 
derstood and inculcated. When we speak of assu- 
rance as essential to faith, many suppose we teach, that 
none can be real Christians, who do not feel that they 
have passed from death unto life, and have not un- 
clouded and triumphant views of their interest in 
Christ, so as to say, under the manifestations of his 
love, 'My beloved is mine, and I am his.' But God 
forbid that we should thus off'end against the genera- 



UNION WITH CHRIST. 315 

tion of his children. That many of them want such 
assurance may not be questioned. This, however, is 
the assurance, not of faith, but of sense ; and vastly 
different they are. The object of the former is Christ 
revealed in the word; the object of the latter, Christ 
revealed in the heart. The ground of the former is 
the testimony of God without us; that of the latter, 
the works of the Spirit within us. The one embraces 
the promise, looking at nothing but the veracity of the 
promiser; the other enjoys the promise in the sweet- 
ness of its actual accomplishment. Faith trusts for 
pardon to the blood of Christ; sense asserts pardon 
from the comfortable intimations of it to the soul. By 
faith we take the Lord Jesus for salvation ; by sense 
we feel that we are saved, from the Spirit's shining on 
his own gracious work in our hearts. 

'^ These kinds of assurance, so different in their na- 
ture, are very frequently separated. The assurance 
of faith may be, and often is, in lively exercise, when 
the other is completely withdrawn. ' Zion said. Mi/ 
Lord hath forgotten me ;' and the Spouse, ' 31t/ be- 
loved hath withdrawn himself and was gone.' ^ He 
may be a forgetting and withdrawing God to my feel- 
ings, and yet to my faith, my Lord and my God still.' 
This case is accurately described by the prophet: 
* Who is among you that fear eth the Lord^ that oheyeth 
the voice of his servant^ that walheth in darkness and 
hath no light ? Let him trust in the name of the Lord 
and stay upon his Grod.' Here the believer, one who 
feai'-s the Lord^ is supposed to be absolutely destitute 
of sensible assurance, for he ivalks in darkness and 
hath no light; yet he is required to exercise the assu- 
rance of faith by THUSTiNa in the Lord and staying 
upon his Grod.'' 

SECTION VIIL 

HOW THE SAVED ARE UNITED ACTUALLY TO CHRIST. 

It has been said, that faith is the bond of union 
with the Redeemer, and thus the instrumental cause 
of salvation. This, I conceive^ is true or not, just as 



316 UNION WITH CHRIST. 

faith is understood of the act or of the principle. If 
by faith be meant the act of believing^ viewed as 
man's act, the sentiment is erroneous; for it makes 
the standing and safety of the sinner dependent upon 
his own act. Because, manifestly, the branch must 
continue in connexion with the tree, or its vitality 
must cease. If, therefore, that connexion is depen- 
dent, not on God, but on man's act, man and not God 
must have the glory, at least, of perseverance in 
grace. 

If by faith be meant the principle of holy trust and 
eonfide^ice in Gfod's testimony, — which principle, be it 
remembered, is the work of the Spirit in regeneration, 
and is kept alive in the soul by His continued resi- 
dence and sanctifying influences there, then it is true. 
This is saying, in other words, that the Spirit is the 
bond of union with Christ. " He that is joined unto 
the Lord is one spirit," (1 Cor. vi. 17.) ^' For by 
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body," (xii. 13,) 
Hence, the duty of endeavouring to keep the unity of 
the Spirit in the bond of peace: " There is one body 
and "one Spirit." And of this body Christ is the 
head, and the fact of membership consists in the in- 
dwelling of the Holy Ghost. "For he that hath not 
the Spirit of Christ, is none of his." It is, therefore, 
more directly and obviously true, to affirm that the 
Spirit of God dwelling in the hearts of his people, as 
in his temple, is the bond of union, than to assert that 
faith is that bond. Faith in the principle, being a 
result of the Spirit's powerful presence, can exist 
only where there is union with Christ, and is evincive 
rather than productive of such union. And the goings 
out of this faith in acts of holy confidence in God our 
Saviour, become the evidence of that great change 
called regeneration. 

Nevertheless, here as elsewhere, mutual consent 
creates moral union. In the matter of faith, volition 
is concerned. The mind and heart, which were at 
enmity with God, are now renewed. The will is 
turned to holiness; man chooses God as his portion. 
There is as perfect volition here as is possible ; and 



liVIPUTATION APPLIED. 317 

consequently, the soul's consent to this moral union is 
secured, and the union is complete. Thus in the 
marriage relation, it is the mutual consent of the par- 
ties, lawfully and intelligently given, that makes them 
one for the purposes specified; that is, within the 
limits of their consent. But this unity of will and 
sentiment, in the spiritual matrimony, is the work of 
God's Spirit ; and whenever these exist the union is 
consummated. Thus also, in all the various associa- 
tions of men, for all kinds and descriptions of pur- 
poses, mutual consent creates moral union. So true 
is it, that not a single principle admitted by the mere 
moralist into his system, stands independently of the 
religion of the Bible. Morality is the application of 
religious truth to the government of human society. 
Thus union with Christ is effected by the Spirit. 
Covenant union, we have seen, is from eternity: but 
actual union is by the Holy Ghost dwelling in us, and 
working faith in us. 

SECTION IX. 

THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION APPLIED. 

We have seen, that imputation is the legal charging 
to an individual, of his own act, or of another's act: 
or the holding of him responsible in law for it ; and 
that, whether the results may be beneficial or not. 
Imputing is accounting a person responsible in law 
for an act; and where the act 5s not his own, imputa- 
tion is based upon some existing legal connexion be- 
tween him and the person whose OAvn act it is. 

Attempts are often made to confuse the subject, by 
representing the impossibility of a transfer of actions. 
The act of one man can never become the act of another 
man. Such attempts, if not a result of ignorance, 
flow from some worse source. It might be known, 
(for the means of knowing it have been spread all over 
the discussions of Calvinistic writers,) it ought to be 
known, that imputation is not the transfer of acts, but 
of legal responsibilities. 

Equally absurd, is also the view^ sometimes held up. 
27* 



318 IMPUTATION — JUSTIFICATION. 

of this doctrine, that it is a ti^ansfer of moral cJiarac- 
ter. It is a melancholy proof of the doctrine of hu- 
man depravity, (which some of those persons deny,) 
when men insist, that the advocates of imputation 
teach a transfer of moral character ; that the moral 
character of the sinner is conferred on Christ, and he 
becomes a corrupt sinner. On the contrary, he is 
holy ; yet, as we have seen, he assumes his people's 
legal responsibility, and fulfils all law for them. Now, 
imputation is God's reckoning, or setting down to the 
account and for the benefit of the believer, all that 
Christ, as his surety, has done for him, viz : 

1. The fulness of his satisfaction rendered to divine 
justice. When Jesus, as his people's advocate, pre- 
sents evidence, to God the Father, of himself having 
suffered for them the full and entire demand of the 
law, the Father reckons, or sets it down to them as a 
complete and full satisfaction. This secures to them 
pardon. Christ has a right, and claims their deliver- 
ance from death and all other legal consequences of 
sin. Pardon is passing by a transgressor of law with- 
out punishment : it is an act of sovereignty. In 
human governments, it always implies a sacrifice, in 
whole or in part, of the claims of justice. But here, 
both justice and mercy meet. Justice has its satis- 
faction in Christ's death : and mercy from Christ 
freely forgives. The sinner himself has no right to 
have the prison door thrown open, and to be set at 
liberty; but Christ, his Friend and Surety, has such 
right and doth exercise it. Thus is pardon secured, 
and thus it is conferred. It is the province of the 
Holy Spirit to give to the believer a realizing sense 
of this pardon, and when this is done, the soul re- 
joices with joy unspeakable. 

Now, we ought to distinguish between this and jus- 
tification. I know, indeed, great eff*orts have been 
made to confound them, and great success has attend- 
ed these efforts. But I know, that just in the same 
proportion have indistinct and often erroneous views 
been entertained ; views, which, if run out to their 
legitimate results, terminate in ruin. Therefore do I 



IMPUTATION — JUSTIFICATION. 319 

the more insist that pardon is not justification. It 
is an accompaniment of it in man's condition, but is 
not the thing itself. To declare a man innocent, as 
we have seen, is a different thing from declaring him 
righteous. A mere negative virtue is really no virtue 
at all. Therefore, 

2. The setting down or reckoning of Christ's right- 
eousness, all his acts of obedience to the law, to the 
account of the believer, is the precise matter which 
secures justification. The righteousness of Christ is 
the believer's in the book of God's account. There it 
stands for his benefit. He is righteous in the law's 
eye. The judge perceives the fact, and declares it so 
to be. This declaration is the very thing meant by 
justification. It is the judicial and declarative act, 
which results, by an inevitable necessity, existing in 
the nature of law and of justice, and in the facts of 
the case. The sinner's heart is changed ; he believes 
in God and his Christ ; he appropriates to himself 
Christ and the benefits of his death and obedience ; 
Christ, his Advocate, makes this appear before the 
presence of the Father ; shows that entire restitution 
has been made to the violated law ; that a full and 
perfect obedience has been rendered to the precept ; 
and that these are made over to the sinner ; they are 
his; the Father reckons them accordingly; they are 
so viewed, and the judge of all the earth pronounces a 
sentence according to law, averring the fact that the 
sinner is entitled to eternal life. 

Thus is confirmed and forever established, the prin- 
ciple of the original Institute, that obedience and life, 
disobedience and death, are inseparably connected. 
And thus the remedial law of the second covenant 
triumphs over the ruins of the first. 



320 



CHAPTER XXL 

JUSTIFICATION SECURES ITS SUBJECTS FOR EVER. 

In Chapter IV, we settled the general idea of the 
term Justification. It is the act of a Judge declaring 
the fact, that the subject of law has obeyed the law, 
and is consequently entitled — has a right, to the re- 
ward of his obedience. The Judge pronounces the 
man righteous, and declares, that, by a necessary con- 
sequence, the thing promised as the reward of right- 
eousness, he is entitled to receive. 

In Chapter XX, we have just seen, that this judi- 
cial act occurs at the moment in which the sinner be- 
comes a believer, by the Spirit of God working faith 
in him, and thereby uniting him to Christ. This union 
with Christ, by the indwelling Spirit, confers actually 
upon the believer, an interest in the entire merits and 
efficiency of the Redeemer's work. This consists of 
two parts, viz: his sufferings or satisfaction to the 
penal claims of law ; and his righteousness, or active 
fulfilment of the entire precepts of law. The former 
of these, secures the believer from the curse of the 
law. Its sentence 'Hhou shalt surely die," cannot in 
justice be executed upon the sinner's Surety, and also, 
upon himself. Hence, by a necessity existing in the 
very nature of moral government, it must follow, that 
the sinner be pardoned: that is, the punishment which 
was due to him for sin, is not inflicted upon him ; he 
is released from punishment, and from liability to 
punishment. The latter, Christ's active obedience ; 
the whole of what he has done to fulfil the law and 
honour its precepts, being now reckoned to the ac- 
count and benefit of the believer, constitutes his right- 
eousness^ and entitles him to life eternal. The decla- 
ration of this fact, by the Judge, is Justification ; and 
he, who is thus accepted in the Beloved, stands com- 
plete in him. Eternal ustice has pronounced her 



THE JUSTIFIED ARE SAFE FOR EVER. 821 

fiat : immutable judgment has recorded her sentence: 
and He, the habitation of whose throne is justice and 
judgment, seals it up for ever. ''I will never leave 
thee nor forsake thee." 

To evince the perfect stability of God's people, a 
few remarks will be sufficient. 

1. Their pardon and justification have regard purely 
to legal relations. They respect the condition in which 
they stand to the law and government of God — their 
relative position in the Divine administration. " There 
is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which are 
in Christ Jesus." Once there was condemnation to 
those persons, so that it was said of them, ''ye are 
condemned already;" but now — after their faith has 
united them to Christ — there is no condemnation. 
They are pardoned ; the debt of their sin has been 
paid by their great Surety; it has been merged in the 
cleansing fountain of his blood. Through death He 
has destroyed death, and him that has the power of 
death. To them '4he Lord will not impute sin," and 
hence the pains and anguish of spiritual death, they 
cannot endure ; but must be blessed. Their iniquities 
are forgiven and their sins are covered ; and hence 
they are blessed. Nor is this act of pardon revocable. 
Where pardon has been issued, as an act of mere 
sovereignty, it might be difficult to show that it could 
not be recalled by a similar act. But the pardon of 
God's people results from a complete satisfaction hav- 
ing been rendered — so complete, that he said, ''it is 
finished:" and this, too, in execution of a covenant 
engagement. Thus is effectually precluded the recall 
of the pardon. The Father stipulated to release the 
people of God from the curse, provided the Son would 
meet the claims of justice against them. The Son 
complied wdth his Father's will — Lo! I come: He 
lived in sorrow — he died in agony — he drank the 
bitter cup — his soul was exceeding sorrowful even 
unto death — therefore shall he see his seed — he shall 
see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied. 
They cannot be again brought under condemnation: 
sooner shall the lightnings of omnipotence shiver the 



322 THE JUSTIFIED 

Rock of ages : sooner shall the sword of justice cleave 
the helmet of the Almighty. " They shall never 
perish." 

In like manner, the righteousness of the Eedeemer 
passes over to his people. It is theirs by his gift; it 
is so reckoned and set down to them. They are not 
only treated as if they were righteous : but they are 
righteous. Arrayed in white robes, the wedding gar- 
ments of their Redeemer's providing, they stand in 
all the perfection of beauty. Before his glorious 
throne, spotless as that throne, they stand adorned as 
a bride prepared for her husband. This investment 
in the righteousness of God their Redeemer, is also a 
legal concern, confirmed by covenant. Jesus obeyed; 
he fulfilled all righteousness for them, and now, hav- 
ing bestowed it upon them, and having given evidence 
of the fact, before His Father's throne, He accounts 
them righteous. The Judge sees them perfect in 
Christ, and declares the fact : and so it shall: stand 
for ever. " For the mountains shall depart, and the 
hills be removed ; but my kindness shall not depart 
from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be 
removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee." 
Isa. liv. 10. 

2. So long as the basis of a legal decision remains 
firm, the decision itself cannot be moved. " It is 
God that justifieth God's elect," Rom. viii. 38. If 
his act in so doing is founded in right principles, 
"who is he that condemneth?" Who will reverse his 
decision? Where is the superior tribunal, to which 
this cause can be carried? Who will detect the errors 
that lie at its foundation; the fallacies which led to 
the conclusion? Who will make it appear, that how- 
ever once it may have been correct, and have rested 
on a substantial basis, yet subsequently the basis has 
failed and the structure must fall ? 

The foundation of man's pardon and justification, is 
Christ's death and obedience or righteousness. Other 
foundation can no man lay. If this is complete and 
perfect in itself, then must the building it sustains 
endure to everlasting ages. So long as the atonement 



ARE SAFE FOR EVER. 323 

and righteousness of our divine Surety are perfect, so 
long his people shall abide under the shadow of this 
great rock in a weary land. So long as the justice 
and law of God are satisfied with what Jesus has suf- 
fered and done, so long his people are safe under the 
protection of his almighty arm. The possibility, 
therefore, of any sinking under condemnation, sup- 
poses the possibility of an erroneous judgment on the 
part of God, or of a falling off in the all-sufficiency 
and perfection of Christ's IVork. From either alter- 
native every sober mind must shrink ; and, therefore, 
the idea of any justified man falling away and perish- 
ing in hell, can exist and be entertained as true, only 
in minds confused and indistinct in their conceptions, 
relative to the legal relations of men. Such an idea 
can exist only where man's acceptance with God is 
deemed to be, partly, on the foundation of his own 
good works, faith and penitence. And this, truly, we 
will at once concede. If man's acceptance with God 
be based at all, even in the least degree, upon any 
thing he has done or can do, then, and in that case, 
we not only concede that he may, but assert that he 
most infallibly will, fall away and perish for ever. 
But if this justification rests solely on Christ's merits, 
and is a change of his legal relations, this change 
must be stable as his own glorious throne. 

3. The justification and pardon of God's elect, have 
settled and established for ever the pillars of Jehovah's 
throne. The moral government of the universe i^ 
confirmed. God has given to his rational and moral 
creation the highest conceivable evidence of the im- 
mutability of his own justice. Mercy, it was his pur- 
pose to manifest, for the praise of his own glorious 
grace. But the claims of justice are first to be heard. 
Mercy is a contingency, as to the essentials of moral 
government; not an absolute necessity. But justice 
is indispensable. ''Justice and judgment are the 
habitation of his throne." To prepare the way for 
mercy, by the sacrifice of justice, were to proffer a 
curse under the guise of a blessing. For if the foun- 
dations of eternal right be broken up ; if the princi- 



324 THE JUSTIFIED AEE SAFE FOR EVER. 

pies of righteousness and justice be violated, that 
sinners may escape punishment^ where is the assu- 
rance to the moral universe that rectitude and justice 
shall hereafter govern or characterise the divine ad- 
ministration ? If God may disregard the claims of 
right and justice, to lift a sinner up to heaven, may 
he not do the same to thrust a saint down to hell? 

But now, the contrary of all this has occurred. Jus- 
tice is fulfilled in the death of Christ. Her sword she 
would not stay, even when the Son of God, in tears, 
and agony, and blood, cried, ''if it be possible, let 
this cup pass from me." Surely, if ever justice could 
have relaxed her claim, it must have been at this 
awful juncture. But no: Jesus drank her bitter cup. 
The moral government of the universe is confirmed. 
Let all the rational creation know, that God is just. 
Let all sinful beings tremble, for God is just. Let 
all holy beings rejoice, for God is just. In his gov- 
ernment holy and sinless beings shall never suffer: in 
his government polluted and sinful beings shall not 
go unpunished. 

But, moreover, another voice sounds out from Cal- 
vary. Justice, indeed, triumphs in the agonies of 
crucifixion ; but, then, she acquiesces in the truth, " it 
is finished," and unbars the gates of death. Mercy, 
brilliant in the orient beams of the Sun of Righteous- 
ness, flies on wings of love, proclaiming "peace on 
earth, good will to men." Thus, "it became him for 
whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in 
bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain 
of their salvation perfect through sufi*erings." In this 
precise character, as Lord Creator and Lord Gover- 
nor of the universe, it was suitable and proper for God 
the Father to save men through the sufferings of his 
own Son. These sufferings, therefore, for the pur- 
pose of bringing many sons unto glory, are intimately 
connected with the welfare of the whole universe. 
For by them is evinced the immutability of divine 
justice, whilst through them is displayed his mercy. 
Here, on this little ball which we inhabit, is enacted 
that wondrous tragedy, which excites the admiration 



GOOD WORKS NECESSARY. 325 

of all holy beings, and the terror of all unholy beings. 
Our earth's Aceldama is the grand arena of conflict 
and of blood — the battle field, where is decided, not 
the fate of armies and their kingdoms, but the fate 
of worlds unnumbered in the regions of space. The 
stars of light borrow their brilliancy from the Sun of 
Righteousness. Angelic hosts, rising rank above 
rank, confirmed by what their eyes see and their ears 
hear, burst away to bear the news to heaven's high 
court, and spread the tidings from world to world, 
throughout the vastness of Jehovah's empire. 



CHAPTER XXII. 

ON GOOD WORKS — THEIR NECESSITY AND TRUE POSI- 
TION. 

Having shown that man is justified by faith, with- 
out the deeds of the law, I propose now to point out 
the necessity and true position of good works. 

SECTION I. 

THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS. 

That man should be received into heaven, with an 
unholy heart, and a hand that never wrought right- 
eousness, is very far distant from the system of doc- 
trine taught in the Bible. I have no sympathy with 
any creed which does not embrace good works as in- 
dispensable to salvation. I have endeavoured to 
evince, that every sinner saved by grace is saved /rom 
his sin, not in his sin. 

The Scriptures nowhere proffer heaven to the indo- 
lent, and careless, and sinful; but only to the holy, 
and attentive, and diligent. They urge to duty. 
They command us to believe, to repent, to maintain 
28 



826 GOOD AYORKSj 

good works for necessary uses, to produce good fruit. 
They assure us, that every tree which produces not 
good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire; 
that the tares shall be gathered into bundles to be 
burned. They teach us " that by works a man is jus- 
tified and not by faith only." James ii. 24. A dead 
faith, a faith that is unconnected with vital action in 
the production of good works, is utterly vain, and the 
soul is dead that has it. Works are indispensable to 
justification. There ought to be — there can be no 
dispute about this matter. All readers of the Bible 
must know, that God's children are required to be 
holy as he is holy; and ''without holiness no man 
shall see the Lord." "He that feareth God and 
worketh righteousness, is accepted of him," but all 
the workers of iniquity he knoweth afar ofi", and will 
say to them^ '' depart from me, all ye that work 
iniquity." 

SECTION II. 

THE TRUE POSITION OF GOOD WORKS. 

Whilst it is agreed on all sides, that good works 
are necessarily connected with salvation, there is 
nevertheless some discrepancy of opinion, as to their 
relative position. 

Some appear to suppose that good works, are ante- 
cedent to regeneration, conversion, and faith: and 
moreover, in some sense, procuring causes of them- 
selves: they seem to speak as if they believed the 
prayers, fastings, and sighs, and groans, and charities, 
&c. which men sometimes practise, have a merit and 
an efficiency in themselves : they lay God under cer- 
tain obligations to bestow his Spirit and grace : their 
goodness reacheth unto him. Without distinctly 
avowing it as their principle, that man's salvation is 
by his own righteousness, they seem to think so, by 
referring to portions of Scripture which they suppose 
have a leaning that way. Our Saviour's direction to 
the young man, who wished to know how he might 
have life, they misunderstand. " If thou wilt have 



THEIR POSITION. 32T 

life, keep the commandments.'' Whereas, a little re- 
flection would convince them, that this and the direc- 
tion to another, ''go, sell all that thou hast and dis- 
tribute to the poor," have the same object, viz. to 
convince men, that their hearts are deceitful above all 
things and desperately wicked. If you are deter- 
mined to '' do some good thing, that you may have 
life," try it, see how far you can go in the way of 
holy obedience without my grace and strength. 

Those who thus lean, are not aware of the spotless 
holiness of the divine law, and of the deep depravity 
of their own hearts. They rush on, resolved if they 
perish, it shall not be their fault. Little do they 
think, if they perish it will be w^hoUy their own fault. 
In their sins they shall die, if they live in them, and 
the most ruinous of them all, is the sin of ''going 
about to establish their own righteousness," whilst 
they refuse to submit themselves to the righteousness 
of God, by faith in his Son Jesus Christ. 

Their great error then, is, that they misplace good 
works. They put the effect for the cause, and the 
cause for the effect. " They put bitter for sweet and 
sweet for bitter." They will have the fruits of right- 
eousness to grow before the tree is planted, or before 
it is engrafted, contrary to nature. When some inci- 
dent directs their attention to eternal things, they put 
themselves upon severe duties; they attend religious 
meetings, they read, they pray, they weep, they sigh, 
they groan, they reform, and do many very good 
things — good for their substance, though bad for their 
origin, and then think God must have done, or must 
yet do something in them. They feel that they have 
done many things ; they have worked out their own 
salvation, unapprised of the truth, that unless God 
works in us, we work to no profit ; that all our right- 
eousness is as filthy rags. 

Here then, is the fallacy. Good works are indis- 
pensable ; not as the cause of the divine favours and 
our acceptance, but as their effects : not as the ante- 
cedents, but as the consequents of regeneration : not 
as the reason why God ought to be merciful to usj 



328 GOOD WORKS, 

but as the evidence that he has so been. *^ First 
make the tree good and his fruit good also." All 
men are by nature wild olive trees; they bear not 
good fruit: consequently, the more fruit they bear, 
the worse for themselves. Until the tree is made 
goodj its fruitfulness is not a blessing. The Saviour's 
plan is to renew the heart, to regenerate the soul, to 
make the tree good, first ; then the fruits of holy 
living will follow, by a necessity in the nature of the 
tree. Thorns will not produce grapes; figs will not 
be gathered of thistles. No application of stimulating 
nourishment, no hot-house forcing, can change the 
nature of the tree: rather such applications hasten 
the developement of its nature in the display of its 
fruit. No artificial excitements; no machinery of 
human device, can ever produce holy action in an 
unholy heart, or bring a clean thing out of an un- 
clean. To expect good works, before the heart is 
regenerated by the Holy Ghost, is to set aside the 
entire gospel, and to build upon the quicksands of 
human depravity, the edifice of your hopes for eter- 
nity. These good works you must indeed have, but 
you must have them wrought in you by the good 
Spirit of our God. Prior to regeneration all you do 
is sinful — your very prayers and religious duties are 
sinful. What then? Must such efi'orts be relinquish- 
ed? Nay, but cease to rest on them as good, and 
able to commend you to God. Look upon them as 
vile and polluted, because of their source in a polluted 
heart. , 

If, then, good works are subsequent to regenera- 
tion, which is sanctification begun ; if this is their true 
relative position, another inquiry remains : are regene- 
ration, and the consequent progressive holiness, con- 
sequents and effects of Justification ? 

To this, I reply, they are consequents of Justifica- 
tion, necessarily flowing from it as efi'ects from their 
cause. The evidence of this will appear, if it is borne 
in mind, that the Holy Spirit is the immediate operat- 
ing agent in renewing the soul to spiritual life. It is 
the Spirit that quickeneth — that giveth life. Faith, 



THEIR POSITION. 329 

hope, charity, and all other graces, worketh that one 
and the self same Spirit. Believers are changed from 
glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord. 

Take, in connexion with this, another scriptural 
truth; the Spirit is sent to accomplish all his work, by 
the Father, at the instance of the Son. ^'I Avill pray the 
Father, and he will give you another comforter, even 
the Spirit of truth." And '^ because ye are sons, God 
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." 
And ^'the peace of God, which passeth all under- 
standing," results from the Spirit's testimony in the 
heart. '^Therefore, being justified by faith, we have 
peace with God." This gift of the Spirit and all his 
work, are secured to the sinner by the merits of Christ. 
If the Rock had not been smitten, the water had not 
flowed forth, to the refreshing of God's heritage. The 
obedience and death of the Lord our Redeemer, are 
not less intimately connected with his people's justifi- 
cation, than that justification is connected with their 
sanctification. 

Suffer me, then, dear reader, to press upon your 

acceptance, the great gift of God, his own dear Son. 

In him, if you ever see life, you must find it. On this 

Rock you must build, if your building will stand in 

the day of trial. To him flee as to a strong tower : 

He is the only city of refuge : His blood alone can 

cleanse your soul from dead works, to serve the living 

God : His righteousness alone can cover you in the 

day of his glory. Washed in this blood, arrayed in 

this righteousness, you shall stand before the great 

white throne, from the splendours of whose glory, the 

heavens shall flee away ; you shall stand undismayed, 

and hearken to the sentence of your justification from 

the blessed lips of the final Judge. '' Come ye blessed 

of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you 

from the foundation of the world." Surrender the 

world's pleasures, and the world's joys, and say in the 

full flowing of your soul, ''What things were gain to 

me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, 

and I count all things but loss for the excellency of 

the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord: for whom I 

28* 



830 DEFINITION OF THE TERM, SANCTIFICATION. 

have suffered the loss of all things ; and do count them 
but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, 
not having mine own righteousness, which is of the 
law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, 
THE RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS OF GOD BY FAITH." 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

ON SANCTIFICATION, 
SECTION I. 

DEFINITION OF THE TERM. 

We have seen that Justification is a forensic terra, 
and is not used in its strict philological signification. 
Theologically and judicially, it does not mean to make 
just, as is its natural force ; but to declare just. The 
whole matter to which it is applied, concerns legal re- 
lations, not personal and moral qualities. Not so 
with regard to the word, Sanctijieation. Literally, 
this anglicised Latin term, means to make holy, and 
it is in this sense we use it in theological discussions. 
But here, as in the terms defined in Chapter IV., we 
refer not to the natural force of theanglo-Latin word, 
but to that of the original terms of the sacred text; 
and this we append to the words in our translation. 
Our inquiry must then be as to the sense of the terms, 
sanctify, sanctijieation, holy, lioliness. 

To sanctify or make holy, signifies, to consecrate or 
set apart from a common to a special, and particular- 
ly, to a religious use. In this sense, material things 
are said to be sanctified ; ex, gr, the various imple- 
ments of the tabernacle — the wood, the metals, the 
cloths and skins of which it was composed. Thus, 
also, the people of Israel, as a mass, were set apart 
to the service of God : and so in baptism, the persons 



SANCTIFICATION — WHAT IT IMPLIES. 331 

are formally dedicated, given up and set apart to his 
service. Thus also, the Sabbath is sanctified, dedica- 
ted to religious uses — sacred services. This "whole 
process, by whatever external ceremonies accompa- 
nied, is called sanctification. 

The other and principal meaning, is higher and 
more important. It is the fitting or preparing of 
men for the work of God: their endowment with such 
moral qualities, feelings and aS*ections, as adapts 
them to the pure and holy services of the divine Mas- 
ter. It regards not external relations, but internal, 
spiritual qualities. It looks to the state of the heart ; 
and the work of sanctification is a transformation of 
the moral man into the likeness of the great Media- 
tor. "Such were some of you; but ye are washed, 
but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name 
of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 
1 Cor. vi. 11. "For this is the will of God, even 
your sanctification." 1. Thess. iv. 3, 4, " — even 
so now yield your members servants to righteousness, 
unto holiness. — Ye have your fruit unto holiness.'' 
Rom. vi. 19. 22. Holiness, here, is the same word 
which is translated sanctification, in the preceding 
case, and is opposed to corruption. God is called the 
holy one of Israel, as being the fountain of all purity 
and moral excellence ; and his people shall be all 
holy, pure, upright, virtuous : and this is the sense in 
which we are to consider the term. 



SECTION II. 

SANCTIFICATION IMPLIES, IN ITS SUBJECTS, POLLUTION AND DEFECT, 
WHICH PROVE ITS NECESSITY. 

After what we have seen in reference to original 
sin, it is surely not necessary now to argue the sub- 
ject of man's natural pollution. The Bible is not 
more full on this point than is the past history of our 
race, and its present condition. History is indeed 
chiefly a record of the outgoing of unholy passions : 
corrupt lusts have created the bulk of it, and we have 



332 SANCTIFICATION, 

only to open our eyes upon passing events, to obtain 
the fullest evidence of man's proneness to evil and 
backwardness to good; or turn them in upon our 
own hearts, to know their deceitfulness and opposition 
to the holiness of God and his law. 

The same witness may be consulted with equal suc- 
cess, in reference to the absence of positive holy 
affections. Our own consciousness, the history of our 
race, and the holy Scriptures, unite in the testimony 
of our spiritual barrenness. Love, joy, peace, long- 
suffering, patience, goodness, all the graces which fit 
the soul for the society of holy beings, how mourn- 
fully deficient are we in reference to them ! Who 
does not feel the necessity of great changes within 
himself to fit him for an entrance into a holy heaven, 
and for participation of its untold felicities! The 
need of this change is hence evident. Such is the 
nature of God and of heavenly felicity, that '^without 
holiness, no man shall see the Lord." This is indeed 
a dictate of natural conscience, and is every where 
admitted. The conception of impurity dwelling in a 
holy heaven, is too gross to be seriously maintained, 
and we may not dwell on this point. 

These two departments, then, we shall account as 
comprehending the whole of sanctification, viz: the 
negative, and the positive ; the removal of impure, and 
the implantation of holy affections. 



SECTION III. 

SANCTIFICATION, A WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

Justification we have seen to be an act^ done at 
once, and for ever ; but sanctification is a progressive 
work; comprehending an indefinite number of acts. 
The truth of this comes home to the personal experi- 
ence of every Christian. The world, even, can see 
that truly religious people are not stationary, but move 
onward : and to a great extent, the evidence of this 
advancement, is, to those without, the most convin- 
cing argument for the truth and reality of religion. 



A WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 333 

Were Christians to remain in the same condition, and 
exhibit only the same degree of holiness in all after 
life, as they did upon their first conversion, they them- 
selves, and all others, would have good reason to 
doubt the truth and sincerity of their religion. Trees 
do grow ; and if they do not, they must die. The 
frequent allusions to the vegetable kingdom in Scrip- 
ture, are designed to illustrate and enforce this idea. 
'' So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast 
seed into the ground ; and should sleep and rise night 
and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he 
knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit 
of herself: first the blade, then the ear; after that 
the full corn in the ear." Thus beautifully does the 
heavenly Teacher illustrate the progressive nature of 
sanctification. Again, " the path of the just is as the 
shining light, that shineth more and more unto the 
perfect day." " Then shall ye know, if ye follow on 
to know the Lord." ''But we all, with open face be- 
holding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are chan- 
ged into the same image from glory to glory, even as 
by the Spirit of the Lord." So the command, ''Grow 
in grace," and a thousand other texts, show that sanc- 
tification is a progressive work. There is evidence 
here also of the Spirit's agency and efficiency in 
this work. "It is the Spirit that quickeneth — that 
giveth life." "Except ye have the Spirit of Christ, 
ye are none of his." In the fourteenth, fifteenth, and 
sixteenth chapters of John, the Saviour most fully 
states this doctrine : it is the Spirit that convinces 
the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment : 
and in the third chapter, he assures us, that a man 
must be born of the Spirit, or he cannot enter the 
kingdom of God. This point, I feel it unnecessary to 
press, because it is so plainly set forth in Scripture. 
Yet Dr. Paley denies the necessity of conversion, ex- 
cept in cases of Jews and Pagans, and some loose and 
uneducated Christians. "I only maintain," says he, 
" that there may be Christians, who are, and have 
been, in such a religious state, that no such thorough 
and radical change, as is usually meant by conversion, 



334 REGENERATION. 

is or was necessary for them ; and that they need not 
be made miserable by the want of consciousness of 
such a change." ^ This is ''daubing with untemper- 
ed mortar." This author's moderate standard of re- 
ligion, we hope, as well as his still lower standard of 
morals, is passing away. Fcay, even of worldly men, 
deny the necessity of conversion ; therefore, we need 
not delay to prove it. 

SECTION IV. 

R E GE NER A TION. 

There being in man's spirit by nature no holy thing, 
it is necessary that the very germ of spiritual life be 
implanted : the dead soul must be made alive. This 
is a change from death unto life; not indeed in a na- 
tural sense; not in reference to the body, but to the 
spirit. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and 
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." This doc- 
trine, new and strange to the carnally minded, was 
taught from the beginning ; and is found in the Old 
Testament. "I will take away the hard and stony 
heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of 
flesh. A new heart will I give unto you, and a right 
spirit will I put within you." And many of the typical 
washings symbolized the same truth. 

Nicodemus raised the same objections to this doc- 
trine which have troubled some modern divines: 
*' How can these things be?" ''The wind bloweth 
where it listeth," was the Saviour's reply, " and thou 
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence 
it Cometh and whither it goeth." Let the mode of 
divine power in its operations be explained, before ob- 
jections are raised against it in the department of 
spirit. The fact, and not the mode of the fact, is that 
after which a true philosopher inquires. How did the 
Spirit breathe into Adam's nostrils the breath of life ? 
How did the anointing with clay open the blind man's 
eyes ? Sow did the command, " Lazarus, come forth," 

* Paley's Works, IV., 167. 



REGENERATION. 335 

raise up the dead body ? With our blessed Master, we 
rest in the fact, and leave the captious querist to an- 
swer his own questions at his leisure. True philosophy 
has as little to do with them, as humble piety has. 

Sufficient for the Christian philosopher is the simple 
fact, " it is the Spirit that giveth life." " He that is 
born of the Spirit is a new creature;'' for he is "the 
workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto 
good works." Prior to this re-creation, there is in 
him no good thing, no holy affections, no heart of love 
to God ; no element of goodness, on which improve- 
ment might be conducted, (according to Paley,) so as 
to procure virtue enough to merit salvation. 

It is usual among evangelical Christians, in view of 
such passages as these, to affirm that the soul is pas- 
sive in regeneration : and this is done, the more deeply 
to impress the mind with the idea of the free and gra- 
cious nature of salvation. Regeneration is not an act 
of man — a mere volition of the human mind. Sanc- 
tification, it has been affirmed, is a series of holy acts, 
and regeneration is the first act of the series. This 
makes human salvation the work of man, and subverts 
the gospel. Nor is regeneration a change made in 
itself by the soul, with the aid of the Spirit. This, 
too, subverts the gospel, and divides the glory between 
God and man. But the act by which the dead soul is 
quickened into life, is the act of the Holy Ghost, and 
that act has for its passive subject the spirit of man. 
"This holy change," says Dr. Bates, "is wrought by 
divine power. Our Saviour tells Nicodemus, ' except 
a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God.' The analogy of a new birth 
signifies, that it is entirely the work of the sanctifying 
Spirit, that conveys a principle of life in order to the 
functions of it. It is the living impression of God, 
the sole efficient and exemplar of it, the fruit and 
image of the divine virtues. It is expressed by the 
new creature. The production of it is attributed to 
God's power, displaying itself in a peculiar, excellent 
way, even in that precise manner, as in making the 
world. For, as in the first creation, all things were 



336 THE INHABITATION OF THE SPIRIT. 

made originally of nothing; so in the second, the 
habit of grace is infused into the soul that was utterly 
void of it, and in which there was as little preparation 
for true holiness, as of nothing to produce this great 
and regular world. And although there is not only 
an absolute privation of grace, but a fierce resistance 
against it, yet creating invincible power does as infal- 
libly and certainly produce its effect in forming the 
new creature, as in making the world. From hence 
it appears, that preventing renewing grace is so en- 
tirely the work of God, as his forming the human 
body from the dust of earth at first; but with this 
difference, the first creation was done without any 
sense in the subject, of the efficiency of the divine 
power in producing it ; but in the new creation, man 
feels the vital influence of the Spirit, applying itself 
to all his faculties, reforming and enabling them to 
act according to the quality of their nature." Bates' 
works, iii. 417. 

But this moral revolution by the power of the Spirit, 
is immediately followed by the spiritual activity of the 
soul. Now, there is a principle of life ; and it at once 
displays itself in an endless activity, by which it grows ; 
and its evidences are from that growth. Here is the 
beginning of that holiness, without which no man shall 
see the Lord; its end will be found confining with 
eternity; and the ratio of its progress, will depend 
upon the measure of the Spirit's influence. 

SECTION V. 

THE INHABITATION OF THE SPIRIT. 

The Holy Spirit has now taken up his abode in the 
heart of the sinner, consecrating his body as a temple. 
'' He dwelleth with you and shall be in you." Prior 
to this indwelling of the Spirit, men are said to be 
^'in the flesh," under the dominion of unclean lusts, 
governed by their own wayward affections, according 
to the will and devices of Satan. *^' Ye are of your 
father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will 
do." '' Because the carnal mind is enmity against 



i 



THE SPIRITUAL WARFARE. 337 

God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither 
indeed can be; so then they that are in the flesh" — 
the unregenerate — "cannot please God." ''But 
ye" — who are born again — " are not in the flesh but 
in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in 
you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, 
he is none of his." Rom. viii. 7 — 9. ''What! know 
ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy 
Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye 
are not your own?" 1 Cor. vi. 19. This indwelling 
of the Spirit, is to be distinguished from his omnipre- 
sence, by which he fills immensity. In this latter 
sense, he is present with the unconverted and will 
for ever be. He kindles the fires of death in the lost 
soul and vindicates the justice of God. But this, of 
which we speak, is a special, personal inbeing and 
manifestation of that inbeing, by his working, in the 
heart, that temper and disposition which fit the soul 
for holy society and heavenly joys. It must be dis- 
tinguished from the occasional influences which he 
operates in the excitation of natural conscience, when 
the soul seems to be awakened and stirred up to many 
activities, that for their substance appear praiseworthy, 
and strongly resemble gracious exercises; but soon 
pass away like the morning mist and early dew. The 
wayfaring man who tarries for a night, is quite difi*er- 
ent from the permanent occupant of the dwelling. 

SECTION VI. 

THE SPIRITUAL WARFARE. 

This commences immediately upon the change from 
death unto life. There is but one interest in the 
bosom of the natural man, and of course, no war, for 
this implies two permanently conflicting interests. 
But no sooner is the soul renewed, than two parties 
exist and the conflict begins ; " the flesh lusteth 
against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; 
and these are contrary the one to the other." 
^'Whence come wars and fightings among you? Come 
29 



838 THE SPIRITUAL WARFARE. 

they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your 
members?" So Peter speaks of *^' fleshly lusts which 
war against the soul." In the sixth, seventh and 
eighth chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul 
gives us a somewhat extended account of these two 
powerful combatants— the spiritual and the carnal 
man — the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and 
the law of sin and death — the carnal mind and the 
spiritual mind — the law in the mind and the law in 
the members. Between these adverse claims of do- 
minion over the soul, there is, and there can be, no 
reconciliation; and the warfare necessarily resulting, 
is perpetual as the being of the parties militant. 
Even truce there can be none, without a violation of 
the Christian's duty. It is a war of extermination 
that he is bound to wage against all the interests of 
sin within and without; and consequently, as perfect 
success will not be attained in this state, it is a war 
during life ; and the only discharge from it^ is in the 
believer's triumph at death. 

In carrying on this war, it is of no small import- 
ance to be well assured of its existence. Sometimes 
a state of war exists in form between two nations, not 
sustained by public feeling. A formal declaration is 
made, and yet the people are not hearty in it, and 
even disapprove of it, and cannot therefore enter 
warmly into and prosecute it with vigour. Evil con- 
sequences not a few, result. Good citizens are reluc- 
tant to share in what they deem wanton destruction 
of life and property, and are exposed to the evil sur- 
mise of being unfaithful to their country. Should the 
number of these be large, it is easy to perceive that 
the warlike operations will be slow, the arm of the 
government paralyzed. On the contrary, if the case 
be clear, plain and imperative, and consequently, the 
united mass of the nation co-operate, (which should 
always be the case, before war can properly be de- 
clared by any government,) the result must be a vigo- 
rous prosecution and a speedy termination. So also 
is it all important to know, that we are at war with 
all the interests of sin. He who is undecided on this 



THE SPIRITUAL WARFARE. 339 

question, will act hesitatingly, and, of course, with 
little efficiency. Why should he deal blows of death 
9.nd destruction, when it is not very clear whether he 
is assaulting friends or foes ? Let it then be first set- 
tled — or as soon as possible settled, in his own mind, 
whether he is for or against Christ. Let every man 
know assuredly, that there is no neutrality in morals ; 
there are but two possible interests ; to one or other 
of which, each moral agent must necessarily belong. 
If this question can be settled early and decisively, 
then will he take a firm stand and will give no quar- 
ter; for it is a war of extermination upon which he 
has entered. "1 would thou wert cold or hot; so 
then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor 
hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth." If we will 
carry on the war with vigour, and to the acceptance 
of the Captain of our salvation, let us enter upon it 
without hesitancy, but with firm and unalterable de- 
cision. 

Another shade of this idea, is the nature of the 
conflict as a war of extermination. The fleshly lusts, 
our spiritual foes, are not to be overpowered, and then 
treated with, and received into alliance of friendship, 
but destroyed. Sorely did the Israelites sufl'er for 
centuries, because they disobeyed their Lord's com- 
mand, and treated with his enemies, whom they were 
ordered to destroy utterly out of the land; and sorely 
do Christians sufl'er from the same misguided policy. 
Our Master's orders are, "crucify the flesh with its 
lusts and corruptions;" "mortify" — put to death — 
"the deeds of the body that ye may live :" they aim 
at your life, therefore give them no quarter ; let them 
be utterly destroyed. But, alas ! how often do we 
tamper with the enemy ! We can hardly consent to 
his utter and instantaneous destruction. We hesitate, 
compassionate, divide the ground; and, yielding, are 
ourselves vanquished. This darling lust, this right 
eye, what pleasure have we not experienced in its 
use ; and now to pluck it out at once, and cast it away 
for ever ; ah, it is hard ! This fond aff'ection, this right 
hand, once so vigorous in supplying my sweetest en- 



340 THE SPIRITUAL WARFAKE. 

joyments; to cut it off and throw it away; this is 
indeed trying; how can I endure it ! Thus Christians 
find the negative part of sanctification, the destruc- 
tive part, simply, to be very difficult. Indeed, these 
are the most afflictive and severe parts of his warfare. 
The dislodgement of an enemy, and the breaking up 
of all his defences, is quite a different work from the 
erection of fortifications and strong holds for our- 
selves. 

In this painful conflict, individual difficulties are 
measurably proportional to age. That is, the longer 
the strong man armed has occupied the house, and 
been erecting his defences, the greater the labour and 
peril of removing him. Aged lusts, like aged trees, 
are not easily pulled up by the roots. Hence, conver- 
sions in early life, have less conflict in these matters 
than those of later years. How strong, then, are the 
motives held out to enforce obedience to the voice of 
wisdom, '' Remember thy Creator in the days of thy 
youth:" ^' Those that seek me early shall find me." 

Farther, we remark, negation is the chief part of 
this warfare. It is analogous to a blockade or siege, 
in which starvation is relied upon to do the work of 
the battering train, the mortar, and the bayonet. The 
Christian must starve to death his spiritual foes within 
the citadel ; must keep them in and keep them under, 
and minister no nourishment, and they will die. Ab- 
stinence from intoxicating drink, is quite an effectual 
remedy for intemperance; and this is not the disco- 
very of modern reformers. The Bible had long since 
uttered the simple remedy, "Abstain from fleshly 
lusts." Here the Bible readers found it; and from 
them, the non-Bible reformers in the temperance de- 
partment, borrowed it. But the energy of the divine 
rule, and the magnitude of its importance, can never 
be appreciated, until we look at the amplitude of its 
range. Where is the lust of the flesh which it will not 
annihilate? "Abstain' — have yourselves away ! How 
inimitably simple this divine scheme for dislodging and 
destroying our internal, spiritual foes ! And the 
beauty of it lies in this, that it leaves all the energies 



POSITIVE SANCTIFICATION PROGRESSIVE. 341 

of the soul free to operate in the positive work of 
active holiness; of building up the believer in his most 
holy faith ; of cultivating all the graces which adorn 
and beautify the soulj and fit it for the positive felici- 
ties of an endless heaven. 

SECTION VIL 

POSITIVE SANCTIFICATION PROGRESSIVE FOR EVER. 

We have seen, that the mortification of sin will ter- 
minate at the grave. No pollution can enter the gates 
of glory : the negative or destructive part of the whole 
process ceases with the earthly house of this taber- 
nacle ; and we may add, the renovated body, which 
shall spring forth at the first silvery note of the arch- 
angel's trumpet, will be free from all contamination, 
being fashioned like to his glorious body, who sitteth 
upon the great white throne, and cometh in the clouds 
of heaven. But not so shall it be with the positive 
part of the Spirit's work. The growth of knowledge 
and of holy afi'ections, does not cease at the nearest 
border of eternity. The souls of believers are indeed 
made perfect in holiness; but it is a perfection of 
kind^ not of degree. We cannot reconcile ourselves 
to the idea of heaven being a non-progressive state, in 
which there is no onward movement : that the powers 
and capacities possessed at our entrance abide for 
ever the same, without any advancement. This 
thought cannot be reconciled with the known law of 
progression, which characterises the spirit of man 
during his sojourn upon earth. No fact is better set- 
tled in our own experience, and our observation upon 
others, than the law of progression. All our ac- 
quaintance with the mind of man teaches us, that it 
increases its powers by their legitimate exercise. As 
the body grows by its own activities until it reaches 
its attainable degree of perfection, so the infant mind 
expands and enlarges its own sphere of knowledge 
and its capacities ; and to this we know no limit, so 
long as the physical structure with which it is con- 
nected continues in order, which is often the case 
29* 



342 POSITIVE SANCTIFICATION, 

until the hour of dissolution. In many instances, on 
the other hand, the bodily powers fail, and become so 
disordered as to be incapable any longer of subserving 
the purposes, and obeying the behests of its immortal 
occupant. There is here, however, no evidence that 
the mind is not essentially an onward movement. 
This material body, this complicated machine of most 
inimitable workmanship, is not designed by its Maker 
to run on for ever upon its first winding up. Within 
it, are the elements of dissolution, which, in the ap- 
pointed time, will bring it to a stand : when the living 
being which kept it in motion will leave it, and enter 
upon another state of existence. In this process of 
decay, it will often happen, that parts of the machine 
become so deranged as to be incapable of obeying the 
impulses of the living agent within, and expressing its 
activities; but it cannot, surely, be thence inferred, 
that this living being itself is in a state of suspense or 
decay. If, therefore, aged men appear to become 
stationary, or to retrograde, as to their mental powers ; 
this is apparent only; the real failure is in the phy- 
sical energies. It is the law of the mind to advance, 
but the bodily organization being deranged, prevents 
the mental developement. Of this, the innumerable 
instances of clear and strong mental activity up to the 
very hour of death, appear to us conclusive evidence. 

If, then, progression be the law of mind, during all 
our acquaintance with it here below, how can it be 
supposed to become stationary at and after death ? 
Upon what can we rest such a conclusion, or rather, 
how can we deduce the inference, that so it continues 
for ever ? Paul desired " to depart and be with Christ, 
which is far better:" but if, whilst upon earth, his 
soul was constantly expanding and progressing in 
every Christian grace — in love, joy, peace, long-suf- 
fering — why should he have desired to enter upon a 
state where there was no advancement? Would it 
not have been better to have remained here in a con- 
dition of perpetual progression ? 

If the trees of righteousness, even in the sterile soil 
of this world, exposed as they are, to droughts and 



PROGRESSIVE FOR EVER. 343 

chills, blights and storms, do, notwithstanding, grow 
and flourish, how much more will they increase when 
transplanted into the heavenly paradise, on the banks 
of the river of the water of life, fanned by the breezes 
of a perpetual spring, and nurtured by the genial 
warmth of a sun that never sets ! 

After these observations, the reader, we hope, will 
rest with us in a strong confidence upon the delightful 
thought, that his progress in the heavenly world 
toward the perfection and felicity of God, will be 
interminable : and that the freed spirit, no longer 
borne down with the trammels of clay, will advance in 
all holy attainments with a vastly accelerated velo- 
city, rising higher and higher in the regions of light, 
and life, and bliss, until he shall look down from the 
loftiness of his elevation upon the highest present 
attainments of the mightiest angels that now surround 
the throne of glory. 

Lift up thy head, then, trembling believer ; raise 
thy tearful eye toward thy future home. Lo ! the 
Master beckons thee to the skies. Fight on ; soon 
the battle will be over, the victory won, the crown 
secured. Fear not the descent of the clay tabernacle 
to its kindred dust ; for even this shall rise and reign 
with Christ for ever. " If we believe that Jesus died 
and rose again, so them also which sleep in Jesus shall 
God bring with him." 



INDEX. 



ABILITY AND INABILITY, 








155 


natural and moral. 




159 


objections, 




- 


- 


161 


as taught in 


the Bible, - 




166 


ADAM, fall of, - - - 




- 




88 


a representative person, 


- 


- 




57 


his Justification, 




. 


m 


83 


ASSURANCE, of Faith, 


. 


. 




312 


of Understanding, 




- 


- 


313 


of Hope, 


• 


- 




313 


of Sense, 




- 


. 


314 


ATONEMENT, general idea, - 


- 


- 




202 


necessity of, 




- 


- 


201 


extent of, 


- 


- 




226 


limited. 




. 


227, 


228 


definite and special, 


- 


- 




227 


Christ's sufferings. 




- 


- 


204 


objections to it refuted. 


- 


•• 




234 


God's design. 




- 


- 


251 


intrinsic sufficiency, 


- 


- 




249 


indefinite, 




. 


. 


240 


Owen's dilemma. 


. 


. 




242 


argument from term, world, 


- 


- 


255 


all, 




•m 




260 


general gospel call, 




- 


- 


273 


CALL, general gospel, 


. 


. 




273 


CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE AND DEATH 


, vicarious. 


. 


199 


CONDEMNATION, 


. 


- 




114 


CONSCIENCE, or the moral sense, - 




- 


- 


26 


COVENANT, general idea of a. 


- 


- 




43 


with Adam, 




. 


- 


46 


of works, 


. 


• 


37, 46 


violated. 




- 


. 


87 


effects, 


. 


. 




95 


of grace, 




- 


190, 


193 


its fulfilment, 


- 


- 




197 



346 INDEX. 

CREATOR, proof of his being, - 

supreme, - - - 

CREATURE, dependent, 

DEATH, bodily, caused by sin, 
DEPENDENCE OF MAN, 
DEPRAVITY, total, a result of sin, - 

EDWARDS' view of ability and inability, 

EVE, represented in Adam, - - - 

FAITH, as a general principle, 

essential part of man's nature, 

a duty of the law, 

saving, a grace of the Spirit, - 

an instrument, 

appropriation of, - - 

assurance of, - - - 

FREEDOM OF WILL, - - - 

GLORY, what is, - - - 

GOSPEL, a remedial, not a primary law, 

establishes the principles of the original institute, 183, 186 

call, its command general, 

its promises particular, - 
GUILT, defined, - - - - 

HOLY LIVING, lengthens life, 

IGNORANCE, a result of sin, 

inseparable by man's power, 
ILLUMINATION, proves mental inability, 
INABILITY, proved by the miracles of healing, 
according to the Bible, 
no apology, 
INFANTS, proof from, of original sin, 

are saved, 
INNOCENCE, Adam's state, 

not meritorious, 
INTERCESSION, its nature, 

its grounds, a claim of right, 
limited to God's redeemed, 
IMPUTATION, 

applied in Justification, 

of sin, alone accounts for Christ's death, 

JUSTICE, communicative, distributive, &c., erroneous dis- 
tinction, - - . 
J USTIFIC ATION, term explained, 

requisites to Adam's, 



- 


13 




15 


_ 


96 




15 


- 


102 


, 


161 


- 


60 


185, 


295 


. 


295 




299 


. 


302 




307 


. 


308 




313 


- 


161 




195 


182, 


186 


Lte, 183, 


186 


. 


274 




275 


- 


115 




97 


99, 100, 


168 




169 


- 


173 




175 


- 


166 




92 


126, 


133 




142 


- 


40 


32 


1, 84 


284, 


,286 


287, 


289 




287 


109, 


118 




317 


t 


219 


1 dis- 




. 


245 




74 


«• 


83 



INDEX. 347 

KNOWLEDGE, given by the Creator, - - 38 

LAW; obligation eternal, - - - - 91 

and Gospel, not antagonistic to each other, - 276 

LIBERTY OF WILL, - - - - 162 

MAN'S PRIMEVAL STATE, - . - 37 

MORAL GOVERNMENT, in general, - - 13 

obligation rests on the will of God, - 16 

agency, requisites to, - - - 21, 37 

sense requisite, - . - - 37 

OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST, active, - - - 200 

its vicarious nature, - 199 

ORIGINAL SIN, defined, - - - - 106 

proved from the case of infants, - 142 

PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS, secured, - - 320 

PROBATION, primitive and individual, - - 41 

must be limited, - - - 85 

its limit, - - - o 85 

PROPITIATION, - - - -256 

PRAYER OF FAITH always heard, - - 293 

PUNISHMENT, connected with wrong action, - - 34 

future, intense and eternal, - 236 

RANSOM, part of Redemption, - - - 230 

REDEMPTION, .... 228 

RECONCILIATION, - - - 202, 224 

REGENERATION, - - - - 334 

REMEDIAL LAW, - - - 182, 188 

REPENTANCE, - - . . 185 

a contingency in morals, - - 185 

REPRESENTATION, in general - - - 51 

a natural law - - 53 

REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF ADAM, - 65 

dependent on his moral, not his phy- 
sical constitution, - - 66 
REPRESENTATIVE RELATION, how constituted, 62 
REVELATION, primitive and necessary, - - 38 
REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, necessary to a moral 

government, - 30 

RIGHTEOUSNESS, what is, - . - 32 

term defined, - - - 79 

SACRAMENT OF SUPPER, illustration of appropriation 

of faith, - - 310 

SANCTIFICATION, definition of - - 330 

implies what, - , - 331 

negative and positive, - 332 

work of the spirit, - - 332 



348 INDEX. 

SANCTIFICATION, positive, progressive for ever, - 341 

SELF-LOVE, implied in moral government, - - 29 

SOUL, not subservient to the body, but vice versa, - 67 

SPIRIT, agency of - - - - 225 

indwelling of - - - 336 

SUBSTITUTION, legal, - - - - 211 

of Christ, - - - 215 

essential to atonement, - - 215 

proved by typical sacrifices, - 218, 219 

only can account for Christ's death, 219 

its consequences, - - 222 

SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST, vicarious, - 208 

their magnitude, - 209 

by God's appointment, 210 

were right or wrong, - 211 

UNBELIEF, in sin essentially, - - - 90 

an acquired habit, - - - 296 

UNION WITH CHRIST, ... 315 

UNIVERSALISTS, objection of, to particular atonement, - 234 

doctrine of, palatable to the carnal heart, 235 

makes Hell a place for conversion and 

sanctification, - - 238 

VOLITION included in moral agency, . - 23 

WARFARE, Spiritual, - - - 337, 341 

WILL, of God, the foundation and rule of morality, - 16, 19 

inabihty, not predicable of the - - 175 

WORKS, good, their necessity and true position, 325, 326 



THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 



1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



ATION H 




7^V 



